• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Hillside Hair Clinic

Overall: Outstanding

162 Nottingham Road, Stapleford, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG9 8AR 07920 220999

Provided and run by:
Hillside Health Clinics Ltd

The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 2 December 2019

Hillside Hair Clinic is operated by Hillside Hair Clinic Ltd. The service opened in December 2017. It is a private hospital in Stapleford, Nottinghamshire. The service primarily provided care and treatment to patients from the Nottinghamshire area, however patients also travelled from further afield to undergo treatment at this location.

The hospital has had a registered manager in post since December 2017 when they first registered with the CQC.

Overall inspection


Updated 2 December 2019

Hillside Hair Clinic is operated by Hillside Hair Clinic Ltd. The service only provides day treatment to patients and therefore had zero overnight beds. Facilities include two consultation rooms, two operating theatres and a separate decontamination room.

The service provides hair transplant treatments under cosmetic surgery. We inspected cosmetic surgery. There are two methods used for hair transplants, this includes follicular unit extraction (FUE) where individual follicles are extracted from a donor site and implanted into the graft site. The alternative method is a follicular unit transplantation (FUT) where a strip of scalp is removed from a donor site and sections implanted into the graft site. Hillside Hair Clinic provided both options for patients.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 10 October 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The only service provided by this hospital was cosmetic surgery, this is reported on under the surgery heading.

Services we rate

This was the first time the service had been inspected and rated. We rated it as Outstanding overall.

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from those internal to the service as well as external services.

  • Staff provided care and treatment which was better than expected compared to similar services, met patients’ individual nutrition and hydration needs, gave them pain relief or alternative therapies when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. The service was open seven days a week and met individual requirements when needed.

  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, they truly respected their privacy and dignity, took a holistic approach to meeting their individual needs, with a strong, visible patient centred culture. Staff helped them understand their conditions and become partners in their care. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers. Feedback was consistently positive about the way they had been treated

  • The services were tailored to meet the individual needs of the patient and delivered in a way to ensure flexibility and choice. The service planned care to meet the needs of local people with a specific requirement for treatment, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment. Complaints were low and were responded to in a timely manner when they arose.

  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and aligned themselves to it. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged with patients and other professionals to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

    However, we did identify areas where improvements could be made:

  • The cupboard where cleaning products, which come under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations, were not locked away. Mitigation to this was considered at the time due to staff being present in the vicinity for most of the time.

  • The regular checking of the blood glucose monitoring machine was not included in the daily or weekly checks.

  • There were two policies which contained generalised details which were not relevant to the patients being treated at this service.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)



Updated 2 December 2019

Surgery was the only regulated activity being carried out at this service.

We rated this service as outstanding for caring and responsive and good for safe, effective and well-led.