- Independent doctor
London Aesthetics and Regenerative Centre
Assessment report published 7 November 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 27 August 2025 (Site visit).
We carried out this announced comprehensive assessment to follow up on breaches of regulations identified during a previous inspection in October 2023. These breaches were inherited from the provider’s previous registration at the former address. This was the service’s first inspection since its relocation to new premises under a new registration.
London Aesthetics and Regenerative Centre, which trades as Revitalise London, is a private independent clinic.
The service provides a range of procedures relating to skin related conditions.
Care and treatment are provided only to people over 18 years old.
At the last assessment in October 2023, the provider was found to have breached regulations related to safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider was issued requirement notices (now called action plan requests) for the breaches identified.
At this assessment, we found the provider demonstrated improvement. However, we identified a new breach of regulation 19 (fit and proper persons employed). We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found.
Recruitment checks were not always carried out in accordance with regulations prior to employment. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were not always undertaken appropriate to the role where required. Our clinical record review showed that there was a lack of information in some consultation records. The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Manager investigated incidents thoroughly. Staff mostly understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff mostly managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.
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. Consent to care and treatment was recorded. However, we noted that the standard consent form did not explicitly reference the use of off-label medication (“off-label” use means thatthe medicine is being used in a waythat is different to that described in the licence, such as for a different illness or at a higher dosage). Following the assessment, the service informed us that the consent forms had been updated to ensure patients are informed when medicines are prescribed off-label.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and make a complaint if needed. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to broaden their knowledge through continuous professional development.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. The provider encouraged and valued feedback from people who use the service. For example, feedback obtained by the provider which was reviewed as part of this assessment indicated patient feedback was positive.
We received feedback from two people who had used the service. They expressed satisfaction with the care and treatment provided, stating they were well informed about what to expect from the treatments. They found the aftercare information clear and reassuring and described the clinic as clean and comfortable. People also reported that staff were professional, knowledgeable, and friendly. Additionally, they said that the fees were transparent and clearly explained in advance.