London Aesthetics and Regenerative Centre

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

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.
At our last inspection in October 2023, we rated this key question as Requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed, and we rated this key question as Good.

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.
Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.
Clinical staff used consultation templates to ensure consistency and support the holistic review of individuals' health and wellbeing.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.
Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people.
Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
Where appropriate, staff gave patients advice so they could self-care. Risk factors were identified, highlighted to patients and where appropriate highlighted to their normal care provider for additional support. For example, as routine, the provider advised patients on the harmful effects of excessive sunlight (ultraviolet UV) on skin and the links between this and skin cancers. Where patients’ needs could not be met by the service, staff redirected them to the appropriate service for their needs.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.
The service carried our regular quality monitoring activities, including audits. For example, all prescriptions along with details of the medicines prescribed were logged on a spreadsheet, and the clinical lead was carrying our regular prescribing audits of the prescriptions. However, these audits were not formally documented.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, we noted that the standard consent form did not specifically reference the use of off-label medication. 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.