• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Westminster Clinic- 21 Wimpole Street

2nd Floor, 21 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 8GG (01789) 41420

Provided and run by:
Rogers Medical Services Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection summaries and ratings at previous address

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 September 2021

Westminster Clinic Limited - at 31 Harley St. is operated by Westminster Clinic Limited. The service opened in February 2019. The service provides day case surgical hair transplant procedures to private patients over the age of 18. There are two methods of hair transplantation: follicular unit transplant and follicular unit extraction. The service provided follicular unit extraction. In follicular unit extraction, individual follicles are extracted and then implanted into small excisions in the patient’s scalp. All procedures were undertaken using local anaesthesia.

There has been a registered manager in post since the clinic opened in 2019.

The clinic is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

  • Surgical Procedures

There was one doctor working at the clinic. The service employed one lead hair technician, one clinic manager and one member of administrative staff. Other hair technicians were not employed permanently by the service but were called upon as required when there was patient treatment.

We have inspected this service once before, on 18 May 2021. Following this inspection, we took immediate enforcement action as a result of our findings. We issued a Warning Notice, on the 26 May 2021, under Section 29 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. We required the provider to make significant and immediate improvements in the quality of healthcare it provides. This inspection visit was conducted to check whether these improvements had been made.

Overall inspection


Updated 13 September 2021

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learnt lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on their treatment and supported them to make decisions about their care. Key services were available five days a week.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of patients, took account of most patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and how to apply this in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.


  • Some of the clinic’s files still contained some older versions of policies or documents. This meant that some staff may refer to outdated guidance when delivering care.
  • The lead doctor had recently supported another doctor to learn how to undertake hair transplant surgery. A summary document had been introduced to evidence the skills and training of this doctor. However, there was no contemporaneous record of the training or overarching policy or governance in relation to this training.
  • There was no written information available in other languages or formats and staff seemed unsure as to how this would be provided. This meant some patients may not be able to access the service easily.
  • The service had subscribed to a service that provided an independent review of complaints, but the clinic’s complaint policy did not accurately reflect this on the day of inspection. The service sent a refreshed policy containing correct details shortly after our inspection.