Vie Aesthetics Holborn

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

This is the first inspection for this clinic location since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback, provided directly to CQC, indicated people felt fully involved in assessments of their treatment requirements and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. People said clear explanations were given and that they were allowed enough time to ask questions.

The provider offered a range of specific or comprehensive blood tests with analysis by a recognised independent laboratory. Results were reviewed by a clinician who provided comments and advice. People could request the blood test assessments to be shared with their GPs.

Staff planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. We were shown the provider’s policy relating to guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and its review and monitoring records. These evidenced how the provider received and acted on guidance relevant to the treatments it offered. We saw that there was provision for other national guidance and standards to be followed when there were no relevant NICE guidelines.

We reviewed a sample of the clinical records of people who had used the service. An issue regarding people’s GPs details and consent not being recorded was found to be a system fault, which was subsequently resolved by the system’s supplier. Otherwise, we saw that adequate health histories were taken and recorded to determine if treatment was indicated. In one case, we noted that appropriate blood tests results were not recorded. We discussed this with the provider and were sent evidence confirming it had been addressed.

The records confirmed adequate physical examinations were carried out as part of the assessment, and that appropriate follow-up and aftercare was provided. The records showed people were given appropriate information regarding risks when unlicensed medicines were being prescribed.

Staff worked well to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The provider worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, such as when people were referred to secondary care providers or specialists.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. It supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. It offered a range of wellness and lifestyle treatments, including blood tests with clinical reviews and advice regarding results, and weight management services.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. It ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider used audits to review practice, monitor compliance and support continuous improvement. These were limited due to the comparatively low number of people currently attending the Holborn clinic. They included repeat cycle records and procedure audits relating to threads lift treatment, therapeutic toxin (an injection used to temporarily relax specific muscles), and weight management prescribing and highlighted no concerns.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider had detailed governance policies relating to consent and patient selection and suitability. Staff we spoke with understood and applied legislation relating to consent, for example the provider did not treat people under the age of 18. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded.

People were provided with clear and transparent information about fees and different costs associated with their treatment.