You are here

Archived: Nu Cosmetic Clinic Ltd

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 February 2013
Date of Publication: 28 February 2013
Inspection Report published 28 February 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 13 February 2013, talked with staff and received feedback from people using comment cards.

'We also reviewed other relevant records held by the provider.

Our judgement

People experiences care and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We reviewed six peoples’ treatment records and found evidence of appropriately completed records in respect of people’s initial consultation and the treatment delivered, including consent. There was evidence of communication between consultants and people’s General Practitioners’ prior to any surgical procedures being carried out.

We looked at the case notes for a sample of people who used the service. We saw that each set of notes recorded each individual's medical history including any allergies they experienced or medications they were taking. Where applicable, this information was reviewed on subsequent visits. A full appointment history/chronology of treatment and record of any follow up to previous treatment where applicable were well recorded. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities in familiarising themselves with people's needs and the actions required to meet and record the provision of those needs.

Staff at the service told us about the range of treatments and surgical procedures available. We saw that information was provided to people in a format they could understand and information was available in leaflets in the waiting room, on the provider’s website and through consultations with clinical staff. A chaperone service was available for all consultations, as well as access to translation services.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We saw evidence that staff had received fire safety training, including the use of extinguishers. Staff told us they knew to contact emergency services '999' in the case of an emergency at the clinic. Staff had also received training in first aid and Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). They also told us patients were given a 24 hour emergency telephone number to enable them to contact staff, or the surgeon for support and guidance following any surgery. We saw this recorded in the aftercare information the patient received.