• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Medsthetics Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

11-13 High Street, Caterham, Surrey, CR3 5UE (01883) 212800

Provided and run by:
Medsthetics Ltd

All Inspections

6 August 2019 to 6 August 2019

During a routine inspection

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.

Carol-Ann Crispin-Chavez is the registered manager. 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.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in and of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Medsthetics Ltd provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions under the name Medsthetics, for example, dermal fillers which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

32 patients provided feedback about the service. All the feedback we received was positive about the care and treatment received. Patients found the service to be professional, caring, supportive and maintained the privacy and dignity of patients at all times.

Our key findings were :

  • Training opportunities were provided to staff, however not all training required had been completed or was up to date.
  • The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the service had systems to learn from them and improved their processes.
  • The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Patients were provided with detailed treatment plans to support their care and treatment.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Recruitment practices ensured information required by regulation was in place prior to the appointment of staff.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal necessary to enable them to carry out the duties.

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

  • Keep the use of chemicals hazardous to health under review to ensure information is available to prevent harm to staff, patients and visitors.
  • Review and improve the recording and receipt of safety events and medicine alerts to demonstrate that these had been assessed for potential action.
  • Review and improve staff/ infection control records to include immunisation status of all members of staff.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

25 October 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 25 October 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.

Carol-Ann Crispin-Chavez is the registered manager. 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.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The Ear Care Centre provides a range of non surgical cosmetic interventions under the name Medsthetics, for example, dermal fillers which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

63 patients provided feedback about the service. All the feedback we received was positive about the care and treatment received. Patients found the service to be professional, caring, supportive and maintained the privacy and dignity of patients at all times.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice had systems to learn from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Patients were provided with detailed treatment plans to support their care and treatment.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Recruitment practices ensured information required by regulation was in place prior to the appointment of staff.

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

  • Keep the provision of oxygen and a defibrillator under review through risk assessment and rationale for why this equipment is not provided on site.
  • Review the service recruitment policy to reflect the actual checks undertaken and align with regulation.
  • Review the appraisal system to include all staff.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14 May 2013

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we spoke with three patients and their relatives about the treatment and service they received. We also spoke with the Registered Manager, the Doctor and a staff member.

We looked at the records for nine patients who used the service. We found these included patient's medical history, visit dates and the treatment each patient had received.

Patients told us they were happy with the service and treatment provided by the EarCare Cente. Comments included "It was very good" and "I have no concerns, it was good and they are very approachable".

Patients said that they had been able to gain a lot of information about their treatment from the service's website and had been told about the benefits, possible risks and follow up care. One person said "I found a lot of information on the website about the treatment, but also had it explained fully to me".

We also gathered evidence of patients' experiences of the service by reviewing the service's patient feedback survey. The most recent surveys showed that people were satisfied with the service and the treatment they had received.