You are here


Inspection carried out on 21 September 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 21 September 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.

The service provides a range of minor surgical and non-surgical cosmetic procedures. The clinic is also used for consultations for major surgical procedures but these procedures are carried out at a local hospital. Post-operative care is also carried out at the clinic. The service had seen approximately 245 patients for consultation appointments between January to June 2018.

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.

At Sthetix Ltd, the aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the consultations and surgical procedures but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

The lead clinician 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.

As part of our inspection we asked for Care Quality Commission comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection visit. We received 24 comment cards, all of which were positive about the standard of care received.

Our key findings were:

  • Systems were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse. When incidents occurred, lessons were learned.
  • There were effective arrangements in place for the management of medicines.
  • The service had arrangements in place to respond to medical emergencies.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patient survey information and Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards reviewed indicated that patients were very satisfied with the service they received. Patients commented that staff were knowledgeable and professional; and that they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The provider proactively gained and used patient feedback. Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • The provider was aware of the duty of candour.
  • There was a clear leadership and governance structure.
  • There were a range of continuous improvements to the service using new technology. 

Inspection carried out on 14, 19 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People were given information about the treatment they wanted. This helped them to make an informed choice whether to proceed with the treatment and what options they had. We found people had given their consent to their treatment and personal information they disclosed was kept confidential.

Before any treatment was given, people had good assessments. These supported the consultant to plan people�s treatment and ensure they were fit to undergo the procedure proposed. People�s care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance. A general post-surgery instruction leaflet was given to people so they would have a clear understanding what they can and cannot do during the recovery period.

People told us they could raise any issue of concern they may have. They said, �I would definitely say something if I wasn�t happy, I have no problems at all�. There was a chaperone protocol followed.

People were only treated if it was in their best interest and we found people were not exploited financially.

Staff were friendly and had a good insight into people�s needs. They were clear in their understanding of their duty of care and associated responsibilities.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Written comments people had made included, �Fantastic service throughout. Thank you� and �Well informed staff and very relaxed yet professional atmosphere�.

Inspection carried out on 15 January 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we found that people were treated respectfully and were very happy with the care and treatment they received. We spoke with two patients and a relative during our visit who commented:

�I�m thrilled with the results � I�d recommend it to my friends�.

�The staff are really friendly and I�ve felt in safe hands�.

People who accessed the service were treated in a clean, pleasant and well furnished environment that was safe and suitable for their needs. People were treated by staff who were appropriately recruited, well trained and experienced at supporting them.

Inspection carried out on 19 March 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We carried out this inspection due to previous concerns being identified at our last inspection carried out in December 2011. These concerns included; a lack of patient information, issues around supporting staff, a lack of medical audits and quality assurance procedures.

There were no patients to discuss treatment with on the day of our visit. We looked at website reviews and surveys and found the responses to be positive. Comments from patients in our previous inspection did not highlight any patient concerns regarding the clinic or treatments received other than a lack of patient information about payments.

Inspection carried out on 30 December 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

Patients we spoke with were very happy with the treatment they had received and all of them said they would recommend the clinic.

One patient told us �Staff were very friendly and helpful� and another who had been nervous about treatment prior to surgery said �I was very reassured by the doctor.�

Patients told us they had received one or more consultations with the surgeons prior to any treatment being carried out. All the patients we spoke with told us they had completed a medical questionnaire and consent form. They also told us they were supplied with information on any risks associated with the variety of different treatments and were given time to consider their treatment options and at no time did they feel under any pressure to have any treatment done.

One patient told us they had not received any information as to when they should pay but another patient told us the opposite and they had received a letter to state when and how to make payments.