• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Sk:n - London Canary Wharf

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

34 North Colonade, Canada Place Mall, London, E14 5HX (020) 3889 0032

Provided and run by:
Lasercare Clinics (Harrogate) Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sk:n - London Canary Wharf on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Sk:n - London Canary Wharf, you can give feedback on this service.

30 September 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection September 2013 – Met all standards)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sk:n London Canary Wharf on 30 September 2022 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The practice had been inspected in 2013 under our previous methodology which did not apply ratings. This was the first rated inspection of the service under our current methodology.

Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently. This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on-site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Speaking with staff in person and on the telephone.
  • Requesting documentary evidence from the provider.
  • A site visit.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The provider specialises in dermatology consultations and treatments and is led by independent doctors. The service offers a mix of regulated skin treatments, as well as other non-regulated aesthetic treatments. This clinic did not carry out any minor surgical procedures, if minor surgery was required it would be undertaken at another local London based branch clinic.

Sk:n London Canary Wharf provides a wide range of non-surgical aesthetic interventions, for example, laser hair removal and dermal fillers which are not within the CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services. Sk:n London Canary Wharf is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the following regulated activities: Treatment of Disease, Disorder and Injury and Diagnostic and screening procedures.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the

requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

  • Leaders and staff had the skills and experience to fulfil their roles in a safe and effective way.
  • The provider had comprehensive governance processes to provide assurance to leaders that systems were safe and operating as intended.
  • Risk management was deeply embedded in the culture of the service, we saw evidence the provider made improvements when risks were identified.
  • There were safeguarding systems and processes to keep people safe.
  • There were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medical emergencies.
  • Recruitment checks had been carried out in accordance with regulations.
  • There were health and safety risk assessments and processes in place.
  • The service proactively sought feedback from patients and used this information to monitor and improve the service.
  • The provider had an effective complaints procedure with an up to date complaints policy which was accessible by all staff.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

11 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We were able to speak with one person who was using the service on the day of our inspection. They told us that staff always treated them with dignity and respect and their choices were always respected. The person who spoke with us said, "I have been coming here for the past eight months and I am very happy with everything." Satisfaction surveys carried out by the provider confirmed that most of the people who used the service were satisfied with the quality of their consultation and treatment.

Treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff were aware of risks involved in the treatments being offered and these were clearly explained to each person using the service.

Staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard and they received opportunities to develop their knowledge and experience.

The provider had systems in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision to improve services further.

13 December 2012

During a routine inspection

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We haven't been able to speak to people using the service because there were no doctors seeing patients on the day of our visit. We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by reviewing satisfaction survey results, checking people's treatment records and the complaints log. We found that people who used the service were satisfied with the way consent issues were explained to them by doctors.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

13 February 2012

During a routine inspection

We did not have an opportunity to talk to people that use the service when we visited, as the regulated activities that the clinic was registered for we not being provided on the day of our visit. We checked a number of satisfaction surveys completed by patients, which demonstrated a high level of satisfaction with the services and quality of care offered by the clinic.