The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

ASKINOLOGY

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

35-36 Leadenhall Market, London, EC3V 1LR (020) 7043 2233

Provided and run by:
Kiwi Skin 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 ASKINOLOGY 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 ASKINOLOGY, you can give feedback on this service.

6 June 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 14 February 2018. This inspection was unrated and was meeting the expected 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 Askinology on 6 June 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We carried out this inspection under section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Kiwi Skin Limited provides aesthetic medical and cosmetic services at Askinology in the City of London and treats adults over 18.

The service is registered with the CQC in respect of the provision of advice or treatments by a medical practitioner, including prescribing medicines for aesthetic purposes. At Askinology the cosmetic treatments that are provided by aesthetic therapists are exempt from CQC regulation.

The General Service Manager is the registered manager. 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received seven completed CQC comment cards. All were positive about the service commenting on the friendly and professional service received.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the service learned from them and improved.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Services were provided to meet the needs of patients.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Consider carrying out audits on the quality of prescribing.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

14 February 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 14 February 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Kiwi Skin Limited provides aesthetic medical and cosmetic services at ASKINOLOGY in the City of London and treats adults over 18.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by a medical practitioner, including the prescribing of medicines for aesthetic purposes. At ASKINOLOGY the cosmetic treatments that are also provided by aesthetic therapists are exempt from CQC regulation.

We received feedback from 19 people about the service, including comment cards, all of which were very positive about the service and indicated that patients were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were described as helpful, caring, thorough and professional.

Our key findings were:

  • There were arrangements in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Most health and safety and premises risks were assessed and well-managed.
  • There were safe systems for the management of medicines and infection control.
  • There was an effective system for recording and acting on adverse events and incidents
  • There was no formal written process for acting on safety and medicines alerts, however where safety alerts were relevant they were reviewed by the whole team.
  • Assessments and treatments were carried out in line with relevant and current evidence based guidance and standards.
  • There was some evidence of quality improvement.
  • The provider did not have thorough records to demonstrate that staff had appropriate training to cover the scope of their work, although staff were trained appropriately.
  • There was evidence of a comprehensive induction programme and structured meetings and appraisals for staff.
  • Staff treated clients with kindness, respect, dignity and professionalism.
  • Opening hours reflected the needs of the population and clients were able to book appointments when they needed them.
  • The service had a clear procedure for managing complaints. They took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.
  • Leaders had the skills and capacity to deliver the service and provide high quality care.
  • Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued. They were proud to work in the service.
  • The provider was aware of and had systems to ensure compliance with the requirements of the duty of candour.
  • The service encouraged feedback from clients. Staff encouraged clients to leave an online review and these were used to monitor performance.
  • The service had won two aesthetic awards in 2016 for ‘best new practice’ and ‘best new clinic’.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Review the system for dealing with and acting on medicines and safety alerts.
  • Review the systems for monitoring and recording training for staff, including safeguarding, fire safety, infection control, data protection and responding to medical emergencies.
  • Review procedures and policies for managing an unwell client, communicating with clients’ GPs and carrying out identification checks for clients to confirm age.