You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 December 2013
Date of Publication: 7 January 2014
Inspection Report published 07 January 2014 PDF | 72.46 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 12 December 2013 and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

During the inspection, we spoke with the registered manager, who was also the principal plastic surgeon. The registered manager told us they provided cosmetic treatments and services for private fee paying adults. The majority of people who used the service self-referred. The registered manager told us that approximately 134 people underwent surgical procedures and approximately 30 people received non-surgical treatments during the past year.

The clinic offered a range of cosmetic surgical treatments, including face and breast surgery. The clinic also offered non-surgical cosmetic treatments, such as Botox. The registered manager confirmed all surgical procedures were carried out a number of private hospitals and procedures were carried out in line with their procedures. The clinic was only used to carry out consultations and for some minor non-surgical treatments.

When a person was first referred to the service, they underwent an initial consultation with the registered manager. During the consultation process, people were asked to sign consent forms, complete a medical history questionnaire and were given information and leaflets relating to the available treatment options. The registered manager also carried out a screening process to check that the person receiving treatment was physically fit to undergo surgery.

During the visit, we looked at three people’s medical files. These were complete and up to date and included consultation notes, records of surgical procedures and follow up appointment records. The records we looked at showed that the treatment or procedures carried out were specific to each person and based on their needs and preferences.

The registered manager told us that if a person had a specific medical condition, such as heart problems, then written consent was sought from their General Practitioner (GP) and input from a cardiologist was sought before they could proceed with any treatments or services. We saw evidence of this in the medical files we looked at.

The registered manager told us that routine follow up appointments were carried out after a procedure. The records we looked at showed that people received routine follow up consultations to assess whether there had been any changes in their general health and well-being.

The provider had a number of emergency procedures in place, which identified and mitigated the risks arising from emergencies that could affect the provision of care.

The provider did not have a business continuity plan but there were number of emergency procedures in place, which identified and mitigated the risks arising from emergencies that could affect the provision of care. We saw that there was equipment in place to deal with medical emergencies, such as an emergency drugs pack.

The provider may wish to not that the drugs pack did not contain a number of items, including Aspirin 300mg tablets and Hydrocortisone Sodium Phosphate injection. The registered manager told us these items had been removed because they had expired but had not yet been replaced.