- Independent doctor
London Aesthetics and Regenerative Centre
Assessment report published 7 November 2025
Contents
On this page
- Overview
- Shared direction and culture
- Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
- Freedom to speak up
- Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
- Governance, management and sustainability
- Partnerships and communities
- Learning, improvement and innovation
Well-led
We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.
At our last inspection in October 2023, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating has not 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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
All staff had contributed to the development of the practice vision and strategy, which was kept under review.
Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.
Staff told us leaders in the service was approachable and responded to any concerns raised. Staff also told us leaders modelled the values of the service.
Freedom to speak up
The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
The service had established Freedom to Speak up arrangements. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns.
Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.
Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place. Adjustments had been made to ensure all staff were valued, for example we saw adjustments to support staff were in place to meet childcare needs.
Governance, management and sustainability
The service had established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. However, we found a lack of oversight or auditing which should have prevented some risks related to recruitment checks and lack of information recorded in some consultation notes.
They service deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.
Leaders and managers supported staff, and all staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Managers met with staff regularly to complete appraisals and performance reviews.
Staff could access all required policies and procedures. Managers held regular practice meetings with staff, during which they discussed clinical concerns and emerging risks. Managers clearly recorded any actions arising from these meetings and ensured they shared these with staff. Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously.
Partnerships and communities
Feedback from people using the service was positive.
The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. For example, the clinical lead linked in with external colleagues to discuss learning from seminars and conferences attended and vice versa.
Learning, improvement and innovation
The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. For example, the clinical lead accessed external seminars to keep updated with current practice and learning was implemented from this.
The service could demonstrate how it used complaints, incidents and feedback to improve.