Updated 29 December 2025
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Youthify Aesthetics. This was the first inspection of this provider since their registration with Care Quality Commission (CQC) in 2025. The service is registered for the regulated activities Treatment of disease, disorder and injury and surgical procedures.
The provider also carried out services and treatments that are exempt from regulation by CQC, these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Therefore, we did not inspect, or report on these services.
The services provided which required CQC registration included, but was not limited to, non-surgical thread lifts; intravenous (IV) vitamin infusions; Botox injections for clinical reasons such as migraine, excessive sweating, or chronic pain; slimming injections; and ear wax removal.
The service does not provide regulated treatments to people under the age of 18 years.
The registered manager, owner and director of the service was a registered nurse. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The registered manager also conducted all aesthetic procedures and other treatment, with the exception of weight-loss advice and treatment. Weight loss advice and treatment was carried out by a qualified nurse prescriber, employed on a consultancy basis. This person also prescribed all medicines following a face to face consultation.
We assessed all quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led key questions.
SAFE:
People could raise concerns and their concerns were acknowledged and responded to with openness and transparency. However, the provider could not demonstrate an effective learning culture because evidence did not always confirm learning from incidents.
Records about care and treatment did not always provide sufficient detail about the reason for the consultation; the care and treatment provided, or follow-up information given to the patient.
The provider did not always demonstrate that they fully understood and managed risks effectively.
The facilities and equipment, met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and risks were mitigated.
There were enough staff with qualifications and experience.
The provider completed training to promote high-quality care.
Evidence confirmed medicines were sufficiently managed and involved people in planning any changes.
EFFECTIVE:
People were involved in all decisions and at all stages of their treatment 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.
Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.
CARING:
People were treated with kindness and compassion.
Staff protected their privacy and dignity.
People were treated as individuals and the provider displayed an understanding and non-judgmental attitude when supporting people’s preferences.
People had choice in their care and treatment.
RESPONSIVE:
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information to people, however, this was often verbal and so people could not always reflect on what they were told.
People knew how to give feedback and there was evidence that this was acted on.
The service was easy to access.
WELL-LED:
The service identified clear responsibilities; however, the provider had not fully risk assessed the arrangements in place for managing all aspects of medicines optimisation.
Some governance arrangements were in place however these were not comprehensive.
There was insufficient evidence to show that the provider of the service has the capacity and skills to consistently deliver high-quality care.
The provider was knowledgeable about issues and priorities relating to the quality and future of services within the aesthetics industry, however evidence that this knowledge had been applied to all procedures that come under CQC regulated activities was lacking.
The provider was signed up to industry specialist organisations and attended best practice conferences. They understood national and local changes and challenges within the medical aesthetic sector.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.