The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Hove Skin Clinic

13 New Church Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 4AA

Provided and run by:
R & F Emerson LLP

All Inspections

11 October 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 11 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.

Hove Skin Clinic  is a private clinic providing general dermatology services and minor surgery. Procedures offered include the surgical removal of moles, skin tags,  cysts, cancerous and non cancerous skin lesions. The service also provides the aesthetic cosmetic treatments for laser hair, thread vein and tattoo removal, anti-wrinkle injections and fillers, laser skin treatment and microdermabrasion.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner. At Brighton Laser Clinic the aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore we were only able to inspect the treatment of minor surgery in dermatology but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

Dr Russell Emerson and Dr Fiona Emerson are the registered managers. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received 45 comment cards from patients providing feedback about the service, all of which were very positive about the standard of care they received. Patients commented that they were confident and assured in the professionalism of staff at the clinic.

Our key findings were:

  • The provider had a clear vision to deliver high quality care for patients.
  • There were systems and processes in place for reporting and recording significant events and sharing lessons to make sure action could be taken to improve safety in the clinic.
  • The service had clearly defined systems, processes and practices to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Policies and procedures were in place to govern all relevant areas.
  • The service had adequate arrangements to respond to emergencies.
  • Staff were aware of and used current evidence based guidance relevant to their area of expertise to provide effective care.
  • Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was an effective system in place for obtaining patients’ consent.
  • The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • The clinic was aware of and complied with the requirements of Duty of Candour.

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

  • Review the policy in place in relation to the time frame for repeating DBS checks for all staff.
  • Review the process for checking parental responsibility of adults accompanying children to appointments and improve the documentation of these checks.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

8 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People were complimentary about the care and treatment they had received. The provider gave people enough information in order for them to make decisions about their treatment. The provider follows a robust consent procedure with patients signing written consent forms before commencing treatment.

People told us that they were extremely happy with their treatment and the professionalism of staff. People had their individual needs assessed before commencing treatment and were given detailed information, including risks and side-effects. People felt that they maintained a close partnership with staff throughout their treatment.

Staff were trained to use equipment and carried out the necessary checks and procedures to promote patient safety. The provider was using equipment that was up to date and well maintained and followed the necessary protocols and guidelines in the safe use of equipment.

There was a robust recruitment and selection process in place with evidence of checks being undertaken for new employees. Staff had the appropriate qualifications, skills and knowledge for their roles. Staff complete a thorough induction process followed by ongoing professional development.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision through surveys and audits. The provider effectively dealt with incidents, risks and complaints. People felt confident to discuss their concerns with staff if these were not met.