The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

ESS Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

142 George Lane, London, E18 1AY

Provided and run by:
ESS Clinics Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about ESS Clinic on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about ESS Clinic, you can give feedback on this service.

6 December 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 11/2018 – Unrated)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at ESS clinic as part of our inspection programme.

The service offers private minor surgery for benign (non-cancerous) lesions. This includes skin tags, seborrheic warts, cysts, moles and dermatofibroma. Consultations and treatment are carried out by general practitioners.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. ESS Clinic provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example anti-wrinkle injections and dermal fillers which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

A non-clinical director is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the provider learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided.
  • The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • The service had systems in place to collect and analyse feedback from patients.
  • There was a clear leadership structure to support good governance and management.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Improve the systems for ensuring staff are up to date with training.
  • Consider installing a hearing induction loop to assist patients and visitors who use a hearing aid.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

2 November 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 2nd November 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

ESS Clinic provides specialist dermatology services to private fee-paying clients.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner, including the prescribing of medicines. At ESS Clinic, the aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the treatments provided for skin conditions such as the removal of skin tags, cysts and benign skin moles and minor surgery conducted at the service, but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

The Managing Director is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We did not speak with any clients during the inspection, but we did receive four comment cards on the day of inspection. The comment cards were sent to the service for clients to complete prior to our inspection.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had clear systems to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Staff assessed clients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • There were systems in place to reduce risks to client safety. For example, infection control practices were carried out appropriately and there were regular checks on the environment and equipment used.
  • A system was in place for reporting, investigating and learning from significant events and incidents.
  • Clients were treated in line with best practice guidance and appropriate medical records were maintained.
  • Systems were in place to protect personal information about clients.
  • Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.
  • Clients were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • There were good systems in place to govern the service and support the provision of good quality care and treatment.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice