You are here

Archived: Nu Cosmetic Clinic Ltd

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 October 2013
Date of Publication: 6 November 2013
Inspection Report published 06 November 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 3 October 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

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 patients' treatment records and found evidence of appropriately completed records in respect of patient's initial consultation and assessment and the treatment delivered, including consent. There was evidence of communication between consultants and patient's General Practitioners' prior to any surgical procedures being carried out.

We spoke to four patients who had received care at the clinic. They told us they were all very pleased with the service provided to them. They said:

“It’s excellent, well above my expectations”,

“I am really, really pleased with the care. They offer a totally different and better service to any of the other clinics I know”,

“The care and support was fantastic, the aftercare is particularly very good”,

“I was very impressed, they are excellent. The surgeon was very welcoming and explained everything to me”.

We saw that each set of notes recorded individual's medical history including any allergies they had 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.

There were arrangements in place to deal with emergencies. In each room there was an emergency procedures and contingency plans notice displayed. This contained information in respect of medical emergencies and utility failures. We saw evidence that staff had received fire safety training, training in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We discussed medical emergencies with staff who told us they knew to contact the emergency services via '999' in the case of an emergency at the clinic. We saw there was emergency equipment available which included an automated external defibrillator, a manual self-inflating resuscitator (Ambubag) and airways. We found that not all staff had been trained in or felt confident in using this equipment. There was no oxygen cylinder accompanying the equipment, yet the Ambubag had oxygen tubing attached. There was no evidence of regular checks of the equipment to ensure it was in working order. The manager told us they would review the emergency equipment to ensure it was suitable.

Patients told us about and we saw information regarding a 24 hour emergency telephone number to enable them to contact staff, or the surgeon for support and guidance following any surgery.