• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

DHI International UK Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

43 New Cavendish Street, London, W1G 9TH (020) 7486 9789

Provided and run by:
DHI International UK Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 18 February 2019

DHI International UK Limited was established and registered in 2007. It is a private hair transplant clinic in London. The service serves the population of the United Kingdom and abroad.

The service has had a registered manager in post since its registration in 2007. At the time of the inspection, a new manager had recently been appointed, and was in the process of being registered with the CQC.

Overall inspection


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)



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.