Vie Aesthetics Holborn

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People who used the service felt supported to raise concerns and felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding. People felt the provider took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. The whole team was involved in discussions to identify where any service improvement could be made. Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a top priority. The provider had detailed policies and procedures for staff to report incidents, near misses and significant adverse events. The provider showed us its incidents log, and we reviewed seven of the records. We saw that the incidents were fully documented with details of investigations, outcomes and learning points. Incidents were discussed and reviewed at monthly clinical governance meetings.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. It made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services, for example, if they were referred to a secondary care provider or specialist.

There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients. Before providing treatment, clinicians ensured they had adequate knowledge of the person’s health, any relevant test results and their medicines history. Referrals and test results were managed in a timely way. The provider told us people were asked for consent to share details of their consultation and any medicines prescribed with their registered NHS GP. During our site visit, we reviewed a sample of people’s healthcare records. We saw an example of information sharing with a GP. However, we noted that there was an issue with the provider’s IT system which did not consistently record details of people’s GPs and their consent to share information. The provider immediately raised this with the IT system’s supplier. We saw the response from the supplier stating that the fault was a consequence of a recent system update, which had led to some parts of the records being wrongly disabled. The fault was rectified and the missing details were reinstated the day after our visit. We saw a record of the event was later added to the provider’s incident log. There were arrangements in place to retain medical records in line with Department of Health and Social Care guidance should the provider cease trading.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what safeguarding meant and staff knew how to share concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding systems were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures to levels appropriate to their roles. We saw the provider had detailed policies relating to both adult and child safeguarding, identifying roles and responsibilities and containing guidance and contact information for reporting any safeguarding concerns. In addition, we noted quick reference guidance was posted in the consultation rooms.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider had detailed policies relating to complications and medical emergencies, reviewed in June 2026. Emergency equipment, including a defibrillator and medicines, was available. We saw logs confirming these were checked daily and restocked as necessary, together with being monitored at monthly clinical governance meetings. Staff received annual training covering basic life support, including defibrillator use, and anaphylaxis management. Staff we spoke with could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take. Patients were advised and given written information on risks related to their treatments and actions to take if their condition deteriorated.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider kept a detailed register of clinical and environmental risks which was updated and reviewed at monthly governance meetings. The premises were maintained and decorated to a high standard. The provider had an up-to-date health and safety policy, which provided guidance and set out staff roles and responsibilities. Staff were up to date with relevant training. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. In addition to these, the provider had logs of daily checks staff carried out to ensure the premises were safe.

We saw evidence that fire risk assessments were undertaken by specialist contractors. Firefighting equipment had been inspected, together with the fire detection system, and emergency lighting. We saw evidence the fire alarm was tested weekly, and fire drills were carried out. Portable Appliances had been (PAT) tested and certified by an independent specialist and medical equipment had been inspected and calibrated. Fixed wiring, installed in February 2023, was not yet due its five-yearly inspection. An annual gas installation inspection had been conducted in February 2026.

The provider had a comprehensive and up to date business continuity plan, covering potential risks and events that might impact on service delivery at the Holborn location. It had a detailed list of actions to be taken by named staff, contained emergency contacts and made provision for elements of the service to operate from the provider’s other clinic in Essex.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked well with staff at both clinic locations to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We saw evidence that training was up to date, learning needs and staff development was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed, including obtaining references and undertaking Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. There were appropriate arrangements for new staff members’ inductions and probation. We saw evidence of clinical supervision reviews were conducted and that staff appraisals were up to date.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. It detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had a comprehensive Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) policy, last reviewed in June 2026. The policy mentioned the IPC lead and set out the responsibilities of staff at various levels with the organisation. The policy detailed the frequency of various regular checks of the premises and equipment and an annual formal audit. We saw the record of the audit conducted in July 2026 which identified no issues of concern. We also saw records of the various regular checks being carried out. Inhouse staff were responsible for cleaning, which was carried out according to set schedules and checklists. Monitoring was carried out and logged. During our site visit, we saw the premises and equipment were visibly clean and noted nothing of concern. Feedback from people using the service was very positive regarding cleanliness at the clinic. Arrangements were in place for the management and removal of clinical waste, including sharps, by a contractor. There were adequate supplies of personal protect equipment (PPE). A legionella risk assessment had been conducted by a specialist contractor in March 2026. A management plan was in place, which included water temperature testing, regular flushing and sample analysis. Staff received IPC training, according to their roles and responsibilities.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. It involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The provider had a range of policies relating to medicines management, including reviewing, reducing or discontinuing prescribed medicines, and for prescribing weight-loss medicines.

Staff involved people in reviews of their medicines and helped them understand how to manage their medicines safely. Staff received regular training and felt confident managing the storage and administration of all medicines and medical gases. Staff kept detailed records of medicines in people’s clinical records and for stock or audit purposes. Staff regularly checked stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including those kept for emergencies. Waste medicines were recorded and disposed of appropriately including medicines returned by people using the service. The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to national patient safety alerts and medicine recalls.

Some of the medicines the provider prescribes are unlicensed. Treating patients with unlicensed medicines carries higher risk and greater legal and ethical implications as well as increased accountability compared to treating patients with licensed medicines. This is because unlicensed medicines may not have been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy. These medicines are outside the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) medicines licensing process, so prescribers must take additional steps to assure themselves of the quality, safety and efficacy of all the unlicensed medicines that they prescribe and supply. We saw the provider had specific processes in place to assess and prescribe menopause hormone replacement therapy in accordance with guidance NG23 issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

The provider had a policy and process in relation to receiving, reviewing and acting on safety alerts such as those issued by the MHRA. Safety alerts were reviewed at monthly governance meetings. We were shown the provider’s log of alerts confirming the process was put into practice.