You are here

DHI International UK Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 February 2019

DHI International UK Limited is operated by DHI International UK Limited. The service provides hair transplant procedures under local anaesthetic for self-referring and private patients. The clinic has two hair transplant clinical rooms, a hair wash room and two consulting rooms.

The service provides hair transplant procedure for adults only.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced part of the inspection on 4 December 2018.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this clinic was hair transplant procedure under local anaesthetic.

Services we rate

We rated it as Good overall.

  • There were systems in place to keep people safe. Mandatory training and safeguarding training for adults had been completed by all staff.

  • Equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately, and there were safeguards in place to protect people from the risks of infection.

  • Staff received training to undertake hair transplant procedures safely and there were opportunities for further staff development.

  • Staff worked in line with appropriate guidance. Consent processes were appropriate and staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and associated legislation.

  • Staff were caring and the privacy and dignity of patients was respected. Feedback from patients was consistently positive.

  • Services were planned and delivered in order that they met the needs of patients. Adaptations to the environment had been considered and put in place, to ensure the clinical setting was safe for patients.

  • The service managed staffing effectively. Staff with the right skills and experience were allocated appropriately, ensuring patients were safe and that their care needs were met.

  • When things went wrong, lessons were learnt and changes were made to reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring again in the future.

  • Risks associated with the delivery of services had been considered and were acted upon appropriately.

  • Staff described a culture of openness and transparency. The leadership team were visible, approachable and responsive.

Dr Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 February 2019

We rated safe as Good because:

  • Staff received a sufficient level of mandatory safety related training to meet patients’ care needs.

  • The service had a safeguarding policy. Staff received training to be able to protect vulnerable patients from avoidable harm.

  • There were infection control and prevention practices which minimised the risk of healthcare acquired infections.

  • Patients had their individual health care needs assessed before undergoing any procedure.

  • There were systems and processes to record and manage incidents. Any incidents that occurred were reviewed and protocols developed to prevent any recurrence. There was evidence of shared learning from incidents through meetings.

  • The service promoted a culture of reporting and learning from incidents.

  • Equipment was checked and cleaned, and all areas we inspected appeared visibly clean.

  • Staff were familiar with the duty of candour regulation.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 February 2019

We rated effective as Good because:

  • Care and treatment within the clinic was delivered in line with evidence-based practice. Policies and procedures followed recognisable and approved guidelines such as the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) and the Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority (CPSA). The service used Standard Operating Procedures developed by DHI Academy.

  • JCCP and CPSA guidelines were discussed at governance meetings, and the outcomes of these meetings were shared with the frontline staff, who implemented them.

  • Procedures had been developed in line with national guidance and staff were aware of how to access them.

  • The service had a robust audit plan to support patient safety, quality improvement and patient satisfaction. Audits were supported by action plans.

  • Appraisal rates were at 100%, and staff received a training needs analysis as part of the appraisal process.

  • There were processes for obtaining consent.Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and associated legislation, and understood their responsibilities.

  • Staff were supported to develop and remain competent to do their jobs.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 February 2019

We rated caring as Good because:

  • Patients were cared for by kind and professional staff.

  • Staff took time to ensure patients were given sufficient information to be able to make decisions about their care.

  • Staff provided emotional support to those who needed it.

  • Staff routinely sought patient comments and used these to improve the service.

  • Feedback we reviewed were entirely positive and very complimentary.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 February 2019

We rated responsive as Good because:

  • Services were sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of patients. Clinic opening times could be extended to accommodate patients requiring a hair transplant outside the normal opening hours.

  • The provider took patient’s individual needs into consideration when delivering the service. For example, interpreting services were available, and there were information leaflets available in English.

  • The service had a complaints policy in place and had received two formal complaints in the reporting period. Although neither of the complaints were upheld, there was evidence of learning from each complaint, with good escalation of patient feedback to the senior management team.

  • Face to face interpreting services could be booked for patients and they could also use a dedicated language line service if needed.

  • We observed that patients were seen promptly and they were able to book their next available appointment.

  • A range of literature and health education leaflets were on display in the waiting areas, to ensure patients were informed about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 February 2019

Are services well-led?

We rated well-led as Good because:

  • There was an inclusive and visible leadership team who were committed to developing clinically-led, highly responsive services.

  • The leadership team were visible, approachable and responsive.

  • There was a clear vision for the service, which was focused on the development of a clinically led centre of excellence.

  • Staff described a culture of openness and transparency.

  • Risk, governance and operational performance was well managed.

  • There were sound governance processes with monthly meetings, where the quality and safety of care was discussed and action plans were monitored.

  • There was a local risk register which was up to date with actions to mitigate risks.

  • The service had arrangements for staff and patient engagement.   Managers were responsive to feedback.
Checks on specific services

Surgery

Good

Updated 18 February 2019

Overall, we rated the service as good.

This was because;

  • The service met the needs of the patients who used the service safely.
  • Policies and procedures reflected best practice guidance.
  • Staff were professional, caring and gave patients the time they needed to make decisions about their treatment needs.
  • The service was sufficiently responsive to making reasonable adjustments for patients with disabilities or other needs.
  • There were systems to ensure the quality of the service was monitored and improved, which prevented patients from receiving poor care.
  • Risk, governance and operational performance was well managed.
  • There was an inclusive and visible leadership team who were committed to developing clinically-led, highly responsive services.
  • There was a culture of improvement, and quality and safety was a priority for this service.
  • The service took account of feedback and showed high levels of patient satisfaction.