Birkinshaw Aesthetics and Wellbeing Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This is the first assessment for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure service users were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to their needs. Care assessments reflected the needs of service users, and the provider told us that if required they would make individual adjustments to care and treatment based on these needs, such as providing interpretation services. The provider showed us a sample of feedback that they had received which showed that service users felt they had the time to fully discuss their individual concerns and symptoms prior to treatment.

The provider ensured service users received appropriate support and follow-up reviews after initial treatment.

There was evidence of letters being sent to the service user’s GP following an appointment, however these did not always include correct or in-depth information.

We saw that information on the provider’s website was not aways accurate or up to date. For example, there were regulated treatments listed that were not currently offered, and opening times that did not reflect actual availability.

There was a complaints policy in place. However, at the time of the assessment we found that the policy contained incomplete or incorrect information. For example, the policy stated that a senior member of staff who hadn’t been involved in stage 1 of the complaints process would be involved in stage 2, despite there being no other staff within the service. In addition, the policy stated that in stage 3 of the process complaints could be referred to external organisations for an independent review, however the provider was not signed up to these services. After the assessment the provider updated their policy accordingly and told us they would make the complaint process available on their website. The provider told us there had been no formal complaints about the service.

The provider requested and gathered feedback from service users in the form of emails and text messages following appointments, as well as direct verbal feedback. There had not been any surveys carried out.

As an independent health service, the provider had control over the numbers of service users who were able to access the service.The provider advised that they were usually present at the service on Mondays and Tuesdays, with occasional availability on other days, and that they planned to increase the time they spent delivering services in the near future.

Due to the nature of the service most appointments and consultations were face to face.

Access to the service, which was located on the first floor, could be difficult as there was no lift available in the building. The provider told us that where mobility needs could not be accommodated, service users were offered an online consultation or were signposted to other healthcare professionals, as appropriate.

The provider treated service users without discrimination.

The provider told us it made reasonable adjustments where required and had access to an interpretation service to support effective communication with all service users.

This quality statement is not relevant for this service and has not been assessed.