Farjo Hair Institute

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Feedback from people who used the service was consistently positive, praising staff for delivering outstanding care, and exceeding expectations. We read a sample of patient feedback which had been received. We saw that people were extremely complimentary about the care and compassion staff had shown. A strong and visible person-centred culture was evident, with highly motivated staff providing kind, dignified care. Staff addressed personal, cultural, and social needs, treating people as individuals and ensuring care met their preferences. Staff wellbeing was encouraged. Emotional and social needs were valued equally to physical needs, ensuring holistic support. We saw that people looked comfortable and well cared for.

This service scored 85 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to treating people with kindness, compassion, and respect for their privacy and dignity. People consistently praised staff as exceptional, kind, and caring. Staff displayed a high level of knowledge and attentiveness in their interactions. One person told us, “The staff have been great, from the first contact I made, they have been very supportive and understanding.” Another said, “I thought I would be embarrassed coming into the clinic but it’s the opposite, everyone has been brilliant.” People we spoke with confirmed they would recommend the service to their friends and family.

Patients had opportunities to provide feedback about the service and their treatment, and staff actively supported them to do so. People shared comments either online or directly with staff. Over the past 12 months, 375 patients had provided feedback, 100% of those asked reported they were happy to use the service again and would recommend it to others. We received positive feedback from patients during our visit and observed further positive comments on the provider’s website, search engines, and feedback platforms. Staff received this feedback, and the service used it to inform action plans that addressed areas for improvement.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the emotional and social impact of people’s conditions and prioritised these needs alongside physical care. All staff we spoke with were caring, compassionate and committed to delivering safe care and treatment. Staff told us they treated people with respect and explained how they maintained privacy and dignity during procedures. They understood the individual needs of patients, including personal, cultural, social, and religious considerations. Staff reported they felt confident to raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory, or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of repercussions.

Staff acted with discretion and responsiveness when caring for people. They took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate manner. Each consultation was scheduled to allow sufficient time for meaningful interactions, ensuring that people did not feel rushed. Doctors spent time explaining procedures thoroughly and answered all questions. One person we spoke with following their consultation told us they felt instantly at ease and that any concerns were addressed respectfully, saying, “There was no pressure to commit to anything, I felt listened to and enjoyed talking with the doctor.”

Staff followed policies to maintain confidentiality in patient care and treatment. We observed staff providing reassurance throughout treatment and saw clinical staff actively ensuring patients’ comfort during procedures.

Staff offered help, emotional support, and advice to people and those close to them when needed. Patients were invited to bring a companion into their consultation both before and after surgery. Staff did not question, encourage, or pressure people to disclose their procedure to friends or family. Instead, they demonstrated understanding of the personal reasons why people might choose to attend the clinic independently.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service adopted a comprehensive approach to care and addressed the needs of people through care plans that documented personal, cultural, and social needs, reflecting individualised care. Staff discussed the specific needs of each person during theatre team briefings held before and after each procedure. These discussions included the reasons for seeking treatment and any anxieties the person had expressed.

Staff told us that patients occasionally became distressed during consultations. They emphasised the importance of providing support to help people progress in their treatment journey and described how they offered realistic advice and emotional reassurance. Staff shared examples of how they had tailored care and treatment to meet patients’ cultural needs, recognising the impact this had on their overall wellbeing.

The service made adjustments to support patients’ access to the premises and to meet specific communication needs. Staff described an example where a deaf person underwent surgery. Alternative communication methods were used to enable the patient to express any pain, and staff applied training to recognise non-verbal pain cues and respond with appropriate pain relief. The patient reported feeling at ease communicating in a way that suited him, and staff described the experience as positive for both the patient and the team. Translation applications were also available for patients.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff took time to explain what they were doing and demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff ensured they understood the needs of each person to offer the most appropriate treatment options.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People expressed confidence in their ability to exercise choice and control over their treatment. One person told us, “I was worried I would get pressured into having a treatment I did not want, there was no pressure, everything was fully explained and I knew the choice was mine.”

Staff supported people to make informed decisions about their care. Doctors ensured that the process of marking a new hairline was completed collaboratively with the patient. People we spoke with were able to express their wishes regarding their desired outcomes.

Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment, including the location of their consultation and surgery. Two people we spoke with confirmed they were given sufficient time to decide whether to proceed with surgery and reported that there were no pressurised sales calls following their consultation. One person completed a comment card stating that staff gave “honest and realistic advice” and that they felt there was “no hard sell or pressure to buy expensive products.”

The doctor who conducted the initial consultation also performed the surgery, which provided continuity of care and reassurance for patients. People could also request a specific doctor if they preferred.

Patients told us they felt comfortable asking for help when needed and could pause the procedure if they felt uncomfortable or required a break.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional in how they listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Throughout the inspection, staff responded promptly to people’s needs, addressing requests without delay. Observations confirmed that staff were attentive and supportive, offering assistance when approached. In one instance, staff were seen providing compassionate comfort to someone who appeared overwhelmed.

Staff regularly assessed and monitored people for signs of pain. People we spoke with confirmed they received sedation and pain relief during procedures, and that staff consistently checked its effectiveness. Our review of patient records showed that pain was monitored frequently and relief was administered when necessary.

Staff recorded vital signs—including pulse and blood pressure—before, after, and at regular intervals during procedures, depending on their duration. All records we reviewed included these observations.

Staff assessed pain using a recognised tool and administered relief in line with individual needs and best practice. We observed staff checking patients’ pain thresholds before continuing with procedures. Surgery was carried out under local anaesthetic, and additional pain relief was offered when required. Patients received this promptly upon request, and it was documented in their care notes. People we spoke with described experiencing very little pain or discomfort. Doctors prescribed, administered, and accurately recorded pain relief in the surgical notes.

Staff were able to describe potential risks and incidents that could occur during procedures and explained how they would manage them. The clinic kept emergency medicines, including adrenaline, on site for use in medical emergencies.

We observed staff speaking with people in a calm and reassuring manner and saw staff supporting a person to help them relax before their treatment began.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to fostering a supportive and inclusive environment for staff, prioritising their wellbeing to enable the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. Staff told us they felt valued and encouraged to contribute to service improvements. One staff member said, “There is an open-door policy here, any problems and we can go and speak to management straight away.”

Emotional support was embedded within the service, ensuring holistic care for employees. The service provided a dedicated staff wellbeing area, which included comfortable seating, magazines, and a positivity board celebrating staff achievements. Reasonable adjustments were made to help staff balance work and social commitments, promoting a healthy work-life balance.

Staff reported manageable workloads and described a collaborative and understanding team culture. Training and support were discussed weekly. Daily team meetings and handovers included team briefs that covered the day’s work and any learning from the previous day. Staff told us they received regular appraisals and ongoing communication from managers via emails, text messages, and phone calls. These communications included career development discussions and opportunities to attend both local and international conferences.

Staff we spoke with said they enjoyed working at the service, with one describing it as feeling like “part of the family.”