FKS 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

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people's communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with the patients' general practitioners, as necessary, for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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 clients had two consultations at least two weeks apart. The first consultation was generally an online appointment. At this appointment the attending two doctors assessed the desired outcomes of treatment for the patient, outlined the procedure, asked about the patient’s health and generally assessed whether this was the appropriate treatment for the patient. Where there were other medical factors, patients were asked to attend their GP to rectify these. The second consultation was at the clinic. This ensured that the doctors could further discuss the outcomes of treatment and assess the potential effectiveness of treatment with the patient. The clinic would discuss with patients the need to lie face down whilst the graft was harvested and ensure that patients were physically able to lie in this position and to move freely on the table during the procedure.

The service planned and delivered people's care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. At the consultations the doctors ensured that the desired outcomes for patients were achievable. They discussed with the patient the length of time it would take for the desired outcome and the likelihood of the desired effect. The process of two consultations with a ten-day gap in between was in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. It allowed patients a cooling off period in which they could change their mind. However, the clinic told us that the patient can change their mind at any point in the treatment. If the patient found the procedure too painful the team would allow patients as many breaks from the procedure as necessary.

The service worked well across the multidisciplinary teams. The technicians and the doctors worked well together and understood each other’s needs. The doctor having undertaken the harvesting of the graft would continue to observe the implantation of the hair follicles by the technicians. This allowed for continuous assessment of practice and supervision. The doctor that met with the patient at the online consultation was usually the doctor that undertook the transplantation. However, patients could request a specific gender of doctor and this could be accommodated. The operating doctor saw the patient at the second consultation and on the day of their procedure. Relevant information was shared with the procedural team.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Whilst this procedure is usually undertaken to enhance the visual look of a patient the medical team recognised that baldness and hair loss was the result of some medical conditions. They were alert to the presence of any dermatitis and malnutrition and advised patients to seek medical help from their GP’s prior to undergoing hair transplantation. With the patient’s permission they wrote to their GP informing them of their diagnosis or treatment required. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The service gave post operative advice on the care of the graft areas and maintained contact with patients to ensure that they did not experience any complications.

At the time of the assessment the service had been providing regulated activities for about nine months. The senior team had planned to monitor outcomes at the end of the first year. Due to the size of the team, they were aware that they had not had any serious infections which had required referral to the patients GP although they could not evidence this. An online platform was used to collect patient feedback. The senior team had prepared a patient questionnaire, but this had not been issued yet as they were still deciding on when the optimum time for patients to complete this was as it could take as long as eighteen months for results to be at their optimum. However, the service could demonstrate that it acted upon and improved services following feedback. This included ensuring staff were reminded to speak in the language used by the patient. Routine audits, such as infection control audits and outcome audits, were planned for the end of the first operating year.

The service told patient’s about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Consent was taken at the first online consultation and at the second consultation. Healing, outcomes and expectations formed part of the consultation and the consent process. Staff were confident that if a patient withdrew consent at any time they would not proceed. Consent was gained to consult with a patient’s GP if necessary. Where this was withheld this decision was respected.