Pall Mall Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We rated effective as good.

Staff consistently delivered care that resulted in positive outcomes. They provided clear, evidence-based information to help people make informed decisions about their treatment options. People who used the service told us they felt well-informed and supported throughout their care journey, which contributed to their confidence and satisfaction with the service.

Staff routinely obtained consent in line with legal and ethical standards. They took time to explain procedures, answer questions, and ensure people understood the risks and benefits before proceeding.

The service focussed on continuous improvement through regular audits. These audits monitored clinical performance, patient outcomes, and adherence to protocols. Managers used audit findings to identify areas for development and implement changes that enhanced the quality and effectiveness of care.

Overall, the service maintained a strong emphasis on achieving good outcomes. Staff worked collaboratively to ensure care was tailored to individual needs and aligned with current best practice.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service completed full assessments of people’s needs before and after surgery. Pre-operative assessments included scalp measurements, graft numbers, donor quality, and photographs. These were conducted in person at various UK locations which best suited the service user. People who used the service received a summary of findings along with consent forms and risk information to review before surgery.

On the day of surgery, the doctor assessed the patient’s medical history, current medication, and allergies. They also discussed individual needs for example, the impact of nicotine on healing and gave advice to try and avoid it for six weeks post-surgery.

Care records confirmed that initial assessments and questionnaires were fully completed. Staff reviewed and discussed key risks and needs with each patient.

People who used the service reported that the process was smooth and that they received plenty of information to make informed decisions.

Post-operative follow up was provided which included face to face reviews at 6, 12 and 18 months to fully assess post operative outcomes.

People who used the service told us their procedures were carried out effectively, with regular monitoring and aftercare support provided.

Doctors were members of the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS). Staff attended ISHRS conferences, including the upcoming 33rd World Congress in Berlin, and had previously joined remotely when held in the U.S. The registered manager completed ISHRS hands-on training in graft preparation and placement and was being refreshed by the doctor to assist with current procedures.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of best practice standards. One technician described completing a 2.5-year apprenticeship with on-the-job training prior to working for the service.

Staff said their work was continuously monitored by doctors, and provided feedback. Technicians also rotated roles in every transplant to observe each other’s work, ensuring a fresh perspective and quality assurance.

We observed staff worked well together to deliver person-centred support.

The office manager conducted face-to-face assessments and handed over relevant information to the doctor, who discussed it with technicians during pre-procedure huddles. Staff told us they worked well together, felt supported, and valued giving and receiving feedback.

Strong collaboration between the technicians and the medical team enabled a positive work experience with good outcomes

We reviewed 10 clinical records, which were accurate and showed clear evidence of multidisciplinary working, with up-to-date information on people’s needs and preferences.

People spoke positively about the care team.

Staff routinely discussed health promotion and lifestyle choices with people who used the service during booking, consultation, and aftercare. For example, we observed staff giving advice on reducing alcohol intake and stopping smoking to support recovery. People told us that staff discussed health and lifestyle factors which could possibly affect the results during the first few months' post-surgery.

Staff consistently provided information to promote healthy lifestyles. While much of the guidance aimed to support hair growth and transplant success, it also covered broader health topics such as exercise, sleep routines, and avoiding alcohol and smoking.

From September 2024 to September 2025 the service carried out over 300 procedures: 80% FUE and 20% FUT. Only 8 surgeries were cancelled on the day due to clinical reasons, with no cancellations for non-medical reasons. People booked their surgery date based on preference, and there was no waiting list. The service made it easy for patients to change their minds if need be and cancel their procedure. Of the people who paid a deposit, 25% cancelled. Those people who cancelled within the two-week cooling-off period received a full refund.

The service monitored infection rates and antibiotic use. Most doctors had stopped routinely prescribing antibiotics, and no infections were reported among people who had not received prophylactic antibiotics. Two infections occurred following FUT procedures where antibiotics had been prescribed and we saw these were resolved with further antibiotics. We also saw that these people were reviewed to identify reasons for infection and future prevention.

Pain scores were tracked, with 224 people who used the service between January and September 2025. Only 2% scored above 5/10. These cases were reviewed to identify reasons for a rating of above 5. Factors such as the transplant being a second procedures or longer extraction times were identified. Pain was monitored throughout surgery and discussed in operations manager meetings. In the most recent survey, 86% of people rated pain management as very good, 12% as good, and 2% as satisfactory.

Monthly audits reviewed metrics which included graft variance, transection rates, complications, corrective procedures, near misses, needlestick injuries, world health organisation (WHO) checklist compliance, and complaints. In the past 12 months, the service did not have any complications and corrective procedures averaged 5 per month.

People's satisfaction was assessed via questionnaires issued 10 days post-surgery, covering booking, staff support, pain management, and overall experience. Overall, 93% of people who used the service were very satisfied, and 90% would recommend the service. People who used the service told us that it was clear that staff had a lot of experience, and they were extremely happy with their results.

Retreatments were offered free of charge to people at 18 months if they were not satisfied with the outcome. Retreatment rates were 4.2%.

Managers monitored online reviews monthly and told us they had not received negative feedback via this platform. However, while staff regularly gathered informal feedback, and encouraged feedback at 10 days post-surgery, further feedback was not consistently requested. One person told us that they would have liked the opportunity to give more formal feedback.

Staff obtained consent in line with legislation and guidance, using a two-stage process: first during the initial consultations, and again on the day of surgery.

The consent form, which included risks, was sent to people after booking surgery. It was reviewed and signed electronically before surgery, with staff ensuring people had time to understand the information and ask questions. Staff assessed people’s capacity to consent and, when needed, spread the consultations over multiple meetings to support understanding.

During our inspection we observed a doctor reviewing the consent form with a service user who had already signed it. The form was discussed again and re-signed electronically on the day of surgery. People told us that they had been asked about consent several times at different stages of their assessment and treatment.

The provider required a two-week cooling-off period between consultation and surgery, in line with national good practice. Clinic documentation was completed daily and audited quarterly. Consent records were consistently maintained, with the current audit showing 94% compliance. The registered manager told us they had not met 100% compliance with consent completeness since a paper consent was used on one occasion due to the internet not working correctly. This was later uploaded to the person's file.