The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: The Island Cosmetic Clinic

49 Station Road, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 4RA (01983) 880180

Provided and run by:
The Island Cosmetic Clinic Ltd

All Inspections

20 July 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 20 July 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 services are provided to adults privately and are not commissioned by the NHS.

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. The Island Cosmetic Clinic Ltd. is registered with CQC to provide the regulated activities of Services in slimming clinics and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The types of services provided are doctor’s consultation service and doctor’s treatment service.

At the time of our inspection a registered manager was 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 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 five completed CQC comment cards from clients who used the service. Feedback was very positive about the service delivered at the clinic.

We were unable to speak with clients about their experience of the service they received. This was because, on the day of our visit, no one was receiving treatment regulated by us. We were told a small number of clients attended for registered treatments each year. Most of the treatments provided did not require registration.

Our key findings were:

  • Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure

people's safety and welfare.

  • All treatment rooms were well-organised and well-equipped.
  • Staff told us the service was for people over 18 years of age only.
  • Clinicians regularly assessed clients according to appropriate guidance and standards, such as those issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
  • Staff were up to date with current guidelines and were led by a proactive management team.
  • Staff maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of clients.
  • There were effective systems in place to check all equipment had been serviced regularly.
  • The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • The provider had an effective system for ensuring the identity of clients who attended the service.
  • Risks to clients were well-managed. For example, there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
  • Clients were provided with information about their health and received advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Systems and risk assessments were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.

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

  • Review chaperone training for staff.

1 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People attended the clinic for the treatment of excessive underarm perspiration, tension headaches and migraine. Other non-registered cosmetic services were also provided. We did not assess the regulated activity services in sliming clinics. The sliming treatments provided at the Island Cosmetic Clinic did not require registration and were non-invasive.

We were unable to speak with people about their experience of the service they received. This was because, on the day of our visit, no one was receiving treatment regulated by us. We were told a small number of people attended for registered treatments each year. The majority of treatments provided did not require registration.

As part of the scheduled inspection we followed up on one area of non-compliance identified at the previous inspection in February 2013. We found the clinic was now compliant with all essential standards of quality and safety assessed.

People were provided with verbal and written information about planned treatments enabling them to make an informed decision about consent and treatment choices. People experienced care, treatment and support which met their needs and protected their rights. Medication was stored and managed correctly. The environment was well maintained and safe. There were appropriate systems to ensure only suitable staff were employed. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received.

25 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People attended the clinic for the treatment of excessive underarm perspiration, tension headaches and migraine. Other non registerable cosmetic services were also provided by this clinic.

It was not possible to speak to people who used the service as no one had an appointment booked during the inspection. We were told that the clinic had seen 4 people for treatment within the last 12 months.

There was very little written information about the registered services provided by the clinic. This means that people had not been fully supported in making an informed decision about their treatment. We were told that all treatments were carried out by the doctor.

The clinic was observed to be clean and tidy. Hand washing facilities were available in each treatment room.

Staff told us that the doctor had an annual appraisal in February 2013 and was satisfactory but the written outcome was awaited.

People were not given written information about the complaints procedure for the clinic. The registered manager told us that the clinic had received no complaints.