Pall Mall Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We rated responsive as good.

Staff adapted their approach to meet the diverse needs of people who used the service. They offered flexible appointment options, including evening and weekend video consultations, and provided face to face assessments at different locations throughout the UK, making it easier for people to access care at convenient times.

People who used the service received clear, accurate, and up-to-date information about their treatment. Staff explained procedures thoroughly and answered questions, helping people who used the service feel informed and confident in their decisions.

The service encouraged people to give feedback, concerns, and suggestions. Staff welcomed this input and used it to reflect on practice, make improvements, and enhance the overall patient experience.

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 provided a face-to-face pre-surgery assessment, during which the office manager discussed people's preferences and carried out a full evaluation. Staff offered in-person post-operative reviews at 6, 12, and 18 months to support personalised follow-up care. People who used the service told us they felt informed to make informed decisions, supported by staff who gave them time and clear explanations to choose options that suited their needs. Managers ensured both follicle unit extraction (FUE) and follicle unit transplant (FUT) procedures were available. The service scheduled one person per theatre each day, allowing for personalised recovery. Staff arranged appointments around individual preferences and offered consultations at alternative locations to improve accessibility.

People told us they received clear aftercare instructions and 24-hour contact details, allowing them to ask questions or raise concerns at any time.

Staff said they received all the information needed to plan care during the initial consultation.

People could choose in-person or remote follow-up reviews, which helped those living outside the area. Staff had electronic access to service users' records and handled post-operative follow-up calls as well as face to face reviews.

On discharge, people received clear aftercare instructions and contact details. They could contact the clinic for advice or if complications arose, and managers coordinated any necessary follow-up with the surgeon.

People who used the service praised the aftercare, describing it as excellent. They received all necessary post-surgery items, including saline, shampoo, leaflets, helpline numbers, and medication. One person summed up their experience by saying, ‘The whole process was smooth.’

The service provided accurate information tailored to individual needs. Staff took time to explain care and treatment clearly, encouraged questions, and ensured people who used the service understood the information provided. People told us they were happy with the information given by the service. One person told us they had many questions, all of which were answered thoroughly. Staff explained the consent form and provided detailed aftercare guidance, including information on diet, clothing, sleep, and cleaning the surgical site. Another patient told us they received a lot of information beforehand, which helped them feel prepared.

People described the service as responsive, with surgery and payment details clearly explained. They shared positive experiences, highlighting personalised support and clear communication. One person said they had several detailed conversations with the assessing manager, including their one-hour face-to-face meeting. Another said costs were clearly explained and they were given 24/7 contact details.

Staff received training in information security and confidentiality. They accessed secure, password-protected electronic care records, while paper records were stored in locked cabinets with restricted access. Managers confirmed there had been no data breaches in the past 12 months.

The provider reported no formal complaints in the past 12 months. An external adjudicator was available if people were dissatisfied with the provider’s response. Complaint information was displayed but this mainly focused on the external adjudicator processes. The services website had information on how to complain, and complaints could be made via email, phone, in person, or in writing.

People who used the service told us that they were informed how to raise concerns and they were given contact details and encouraged to ask questions or raise any concerns.

Peoples feedback led to improvements, such as expanding the DVD selection and changing the waiting area so people who used the service waited in a more private environment. The service regularly reviewed feedback through online review platforms, which were consistently positive.

A complaints policy was in place, with a review date of April 2026, suggesting it was written in 2025, although this was unclear. The patient involvement and feedback policy outlined various methods for gathering feedback, including post-treatment and annual surveys, a suggestion box, digital forms, online reviews, testimonials, and complaints.

Although staff often asked for informal feedback during procedures, one person reported not being asked for formal feedback.

The service had taken steps to improve feedback and increase response rates. Managers focused on collecting feedback within the first two weeks following treatment, which provided useful insights into people's immediate experience. However, they did not routinely gather feedback at later follow-up stages such as 6, 12, or 18 months. Instead, they assessed outcomes and whether re-treatment was required at the 18-month mark.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to accessibility and responsiveness, with managers planning and organising care to meet the needs of both the local population and people who used the service travelling from further afield. People who used the service did not need to reside locally to access treatment, provided they were willing to travel. For those coming from outside the area, the service offered remote face to face appointments and arranged fully paid hotel accommodation the night before surgery.

Staff accommodated individual needs and preferences. For example, wheelchair users were scheduled in accessible upstairs rooms, as the basement was not suitable for people with mobility needs. A larger treatment bed was available for people who used the service weighing up to 30 stone.

The service offered flexible booking options, including evening and weekend video consultations, to suit people's schedules. Managers actively monitored waiting times and ensured timely access to services. The service maintained sufficient capacity to schedule appointments promptly, based on individual preferences, and reported no backlogs or waiting lists.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination and gave examples of how they respected individual needs and preferences, particularly for those with protected characteristics. The service followed a clear equality, diversity and inclusion policy, which outlined its commitment to promoting equal opportunities and non-discriminatory practices in care delivery. All staff had completed mandatory training in equality and diversity and were able to describe how they embedded equity in their practice. They ensured care and treatment decisions were made without bias, in line with the Equality Act.

The service’s inclusion criteria excluded individuals lacking capacity to consent, in line with its clinical governance policies.

Staff supported people who used the service to plan for their treatment, allowing time to make informed decisions. Care and treatment plans, including discharge arrangements, were discussed and agreed prior to surgery. Discharge records confirmed that people who used the service received clear aftercare instructions and post-operative recovery advice.

The service delivered a thorough aftercare process. Staff made regular follow-up calls and held meetings with people who used the service after surgery to monitor recovery and provide ongoing support. The records we sampled during our assessment confirmed that this contact was consistent and aimed at ensuring people who used the service felt supported throughout their post-operative journey.