Seymour Clinic

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 people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

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

All treatments plans were personalised, and staff took time to ensure that the patients’ thoughts, considerations and wishes were taken into account. All patients had an individual treatment plan.

The service was flexible, provided informed choice and ensured continuity of care. Managers and staff planned and delivered care in a way that reflected people’s needs, and patients told us they had been given choices of appointment times and consultation methods to suit them.

We saw detailed discussions took place between the doctor and patients prior to them making any decisions; this included information about how the procedure would be performed, cost, and any potential risks or complications. Doctors would also explore the possibility of other options or not performing a procedure at all, if they felt this was more appropriate for the patient. All patients said they had been fully informed and supported at all stages of treatment

Facilities and premises met the needs of a range of people who used the service. The service was accessible to patients who used mobility aids, with accessible bathroom and treatment room facilities.

The service 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.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance. This included guidance from the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS), The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Leaders reported that there was a process in place for policies to be reviewed regularly to ensure they were updated in line with national guidance.

We reviewed a selection of policies including medical emergencies, medicines management, aseptic technique during surgical procedures, and protocols for the medical team and saw these were clear and accessible to all staff.

Staff assessed people’s suitability for proposed treatments. During consultations, doctors reviewed and assessed each patient’s medical history, general health, mental health and any previous cosmetic surgery. Expected outcomes and potential risks were discussed openly and honestly, in line with national guidance and professional standards.

The service worked well across teams and services 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.

The treatment provided was consultant-led and all team members were aware of which doctor had overall responsibility for each patient’s care. The doctor was the point of contact for the patient and would discuss clinical questions or concerns. The doctor was involved in the patient pathway from initial consultation to post procedure follow up. If a patient had any additional needs or requirements these would be shared with the team to provide a patient focused care pathway.

We saw the team worked well together and delivered care and treatment in a co-ordinated way. There were positive working relationships between all staff, and they told us they were all focused on providing the best care possible to patients. As the service was small, we were told the team communicated effectively. Morning briefings took place, attended by all staff, and we saw there was inclusive and supportive discussion.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

The service provided advice for patients to follow during consultation and on their website. This included advising patients to stop smoking at least 2 weeks before surgery. This was to reduce the risk of postoperative complications including poor wound healing and respiratory issues. Patients were also advised to avoid alcohol at least 2 weeks prior to surgery. This was to reduce the risk of excessive bleeding, infections and anaesthetic problems. The service also had a social media account where they provided additional information on procedures. This information included but was not limited to explanations on why certain procedures may not be suitable for everyone, associated risks of procedures and post procedure guidance.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. However, they consistently ensured that outcomes were positive and met the expectations of people.

The service reported that they had completed emergency transfers in the past due to surgical complications. However, they did not provide evidence of patient outcomes relating to emergency transfers or surgical complications being audited or discussed at team meetings. This meant that we could not be assured that these outcomes were being monitored or that learning was identified.

However, patient satisfaction was monitored and outcomes for patients were positive, consistent and met expectations. We observed consistently positive reviews of the service, with patients actively choosing this service for revisions of surgery done elsewhere.

The service reported that they were continually looking at how they could improve treatments for patients. This included plans to implement new and improved treatments and setting up a new location to increase capacity.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centered care and treatment.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The service also had an in date mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) policy for staff to refer to.

Staff gained consent from patients for their care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. Staff understood their responsibilities regarding consent. The doctor had consultations with the patients before they carried out any procedures. They explained the expected outcomes and ensured the patient understood these and any potential risks before agreeing to go ahead with procedures. We saw detailed preprocedural information was given to patients, which included managing expectations, risks and potential complications.

Staff clearly recorded consent in the patients’ records. Patients who were booked for cosmetic surgery were given a two-week cooling off period before undergoing the procedure, in case they wanted to change their mind. This was in line with national guidance.