Youthify Aesthetics

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Requires Improvement

This service scored 62 (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 was open and honest. However, the service did not have a proactive and positive culture of safety. the systems to learn and make improvements when things went wrong were not robust. Investigations were not comprehensive and they did not include an analysis of why things went wrong or document specific learning and actions taken . The provided failed to embed learning to prevent future incidents.

The provider listened to concerns about safety, however processes to ensure safety events were appropriately investigated and reported were not in place. Lessons learnt were not continually identified and embedded into practice.

The provider worked with a nurse prescriber and other healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored.

The provider generally made sure there was continuity of care, in relation to slimming treatments. However, processes needed to be strengthened because the provider did not always record details of the patient’s GP.

Documentation and record keeping for some procedures needed strengthening to ensure all the required information was included specifically for people who had undergone earwax removal treatment.

The service worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve this.

Safeguarding policies were in place and the provider and contract staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures.

The service had systems to record and share concerns quickly and appropriately. Contact numbers for the safeguarding lead and local authority safeguarding team were easily accessible. The provider had completed a DBS (Disclosure Barring Service) check.

In the main, the service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically.

Although the service did not see acutely unwell patients, the provider explained their responsibilities to manage emergencies. However, the actions described had not been risk assessed.

The provider had completed basic life support training to manage medical emergencies.

In the main, assessments provided sufficient detail to support provision of the service and always included past medical history, current medicines and allergies.

The provider told us they verbally informed people of actions to take if they experience any complication post treatment; however, people were not provided with this information in writing and no information on what to do if conditions deteriorated or patients experienced complications was available on the provider's website.

Youthify Aesthetics is located in a small, detached unit in a semi-rural location on the outskirts of Bolton. There was level access throughout and all areas used by patients were clean and warm.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

Contracts were in place to ensure the clinical waste was collected and disposed of safely. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and no risks concerning the building had been identified.

However, the provider had not risk-assessed the rural nature of the location to mitigate any risk, including access and the fact that mobile phone connectivity was not assured from the building and there was no landline.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received support, supervision and development. They worked together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We found training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence.

The provider was registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and their revalidation was up to date. The nurse prescriber employed by the service on a contractual basis was also correctly registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Both attended conferences, courses and training to keep up to date with innovations and changes within the sector. They also met regularly with a network of local peers to share experience and knowledge.

Safe recruitment practices were followed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

We found all areas of the clinic, the treatment room and waiting area were visibly clean and hygienic.

The provider was the infection-prevention and control lead.

Cleaning schedules were in place and followed.

Infection control risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.

Policies and procedures were in place, however, these had not been sufficiently updated to mitigate all identified risks.

The clinic used a limited range of medicines. Of the medicines used, we saw they met patient’s needs, capacities and preferences. The service involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

There were effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls.

The service employed a qualified independent nurse prescriber on a consultancy basis who was able to prescribe for conditions within their competency. Controlled medicines were not prescribed by the nurse prescriber.

Limited medication was stored at the service, and this was prescribed for specific patients accessing the service.

Paper prescriptions were not used, and the nurse prescriber used a secure industry recommended on-line system for sending prescription direct to an on-line pharmacist.

The nurse prescriber also had an arrangement with a local high-street pharmacist to supply emergency medication for specific patients if required.

However, no risk assessment was in place to determine whether these arrangements were satisfactory based on the procedures completed at the service.

The prescribed medicines were stored securely and at appropriate temperatures.