Farjo Hair Institute

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People using the service described their care as “excellent” and “individual”. The service adopted a holistic approach to assessing, planning, and delivering person-centred care, supported by robust processes that drive continuous improvement. Handovers and multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings effectively prioritised patient outcomes, emphasising psychological and emotional needs. Staff were well-trained in managing complaints and incident reporting, with learning actively promoted through multiple channels to enhance services. Regular audits underscored a commitment to evidence-based practice. Policies were proactively updated and innovative practices encouraged improved outcomes.

This service scored 88 (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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service had clear admission policies guiding staff on required assessments before accepting individuals. As part of referral triage, patients completed an initial telephone assessment and safety questionnaire to identify risks prior to procedures.

Doctors reviewed full medical histories and current medications, advising patients to stop certain drugs, such as blood thinners, to reduce procedural risks.

Staff used detailed tailored pre-operative assessment forms specific for male and female hair loss patients these captured allergies, mental health, bleeding disorders, scalp conditions, and GP details. All female patients were required to undergo routine blood tests at the consultation stage of their journey. This was to ensure their suitability to undergo the surgery. Staff told us female hair loss can sometimes be down to hormone imbalances and may only be temporary, it was therefore vital to ensure only those who had permanent hair loss had the procedure.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs when assessing patients and how they may relate to care needs. Staff were able to discuss examples of how this had been addressed with patients previously. Staff gave examples of identifying the best course of treatment if someone was not suitable for surgery, with referrals to dermatologists, trichologists and psychologists. We saw evidence of this within care planning. Staff told us how they needed to have respectful conversations with different patient groups and we saw evidence of positive feedback they had received from previous patients about their sensitivity when having these conversations. The service provided chaperones to patients who required one.

Care records reviewed during the inspection confirmed that assessments and safety questionnaires were completed appropriately. Staff had discussed key risks and needs with patients, using validated tools and accessible resources to support personalised care planning. Care needs were regularly reviewed and adjusted based on changes, considering communication, personal, and health needs. Care delivery followed best practice and current evidence as recommended by BAHRS and ISHRS.

Feedback was consistently positive. People told us they felt involved in decision-making and confident staff understood their needs. During consultation, patients received a hair restoration guide outlining possible exclusions. Staff discussed mental health and wellbeing, ensuring expectations were realistic. The Registered Manager (RM) told us they routinely reviewed evaluation results to identify mental or emotional health risks and liaised with GPs or other professionals when needed.

Patients using the service told us they felt safe and well-supported throughout their procedures, receiving all necessary information during consultation and on the day of surgery.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

The team had access to all necessary specialists and staff were experienced, qualified, and skilled to support the patient group. Care was planned and delivered in line with up-to-date policies, national guidance, and best practice. Policies aligned with clinical standards recommended by the British Association of Hair Restoration Surgery (BAHRS), the Royal College of Surgeons, and the Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority (CPSA) for Hair Transplant Surgery. Relevant aspects of NICE guidance had also been implemented.

The clinic used World Health Organisation (WHO) tools adapted by BAHRS for hair transplant surgery to promote safety and improve outcomes. An audit schedule was maintained, with completed audits demonstrating compliance. WHO checklist audits in 2025 showed 100% compliance. Staff also used local safety systems, including adapted surgical checklists and patient photo identification.

We saw evidence that managers and staff had attended and presented at professional conferences, sharing learning and best practice.

Doctors pioneered procedures and live-streamed surgeries to support sector development and demonstrated that they had researched and sourced the best available equipment to enhance procedural quality, including travelling abroad to test equipment prior to purchase.

The medical team had authored or co-authored all UK documentation relating to standards and regulations in hair restoration, including the CPSA standard for Hair Transplant Surgery.

People using the service told us they had no concerns about the quality of procedures and had chosen the clinic due to its excellent reputation. Staff ensured that those using the service had access to food and drink during their surgical appointments. People reported satisfaction with the options provided and confirmed that their procedures were carried out effectively, with staff meeting their needs and expectations.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

We observed that all staff involved in care delivery worked cohesively to provide person-centred support throughout the care journey. Collaboration across teams was evident throughout the service.

Doctors led consultations and procedures and handed over all relevant information to technicians during theatre team briefings held before each procedure. Weekly multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings facilitated the sharing of information and collaborative decision-making regarding treatment plans. Staff from all disciplines actively participated, ensuring a coordinated and consistent approach to care. Staff told us, “The doctors appreciate what we do, we all work together for our patients, they are our priority.”

Staff demonstrated strong collaboration with the medical team and with people using the service, which enabled early identification of pain or discomfort. One staff member commented, “We work really closely with the doctors and get to know our patients well, so we can pick up signs of discomfort or pain very quickly.”

A review of 4 clinical records confirmed that assessments were accurate and included clear evidence of MDT working, with up-to-date information on individuals’ needs and preferences.

The service had effective partnerships with other healthcare providers—including GPs, NHS Trusts, and other hair transplant services—by offering advice and sharing best practice. Inspectors noted collaborative efforts around equipment use, patient outcomes, and complication management.

Staffing for procedure days was scheduled in line with best practice guidance from the CPSA, which recommends a minimum of 1 surgeon and 2 hair technicians per procedure. On the day of inspection, the service exceeded this requirement. Technicians reported receiving their rotas in good time and described having a good work-life balance. Most staff had worked at the clinic for several years.

Teams maintained effective working relationships with other departments within the organisation, including patient managers and the administration team. We observed good handovers and communication between these teams.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

The service demonstrated a consistent and proactive approach to supporting individuals to lead healthier lives. Staff focused on identifying those who required additional support and advice to achieve the best outcomes from their treatment. They adopted a targeted strategy for health promotion, using every interaction to enhance independence, choice, and control over health and wellbeing.

Staff provided patients with advice and information to promote a healthy lifestyle. While much of the guidance aimed to optimise the success of hair transplant procedures by encouraging hair growth, the pre- and post-operative information also included broader health advice. This covered topics such as exercise, sleep routines, and the avoidance of alcohol and smoking.

During consultations, the medical team completed holistic assessments and routinely offered lifestyle advice. Where appropriate, staff signposted individuals to other services to support their wider health and wellbeing needs.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service promoted a culture of continuous learning, with systems in place to share best practice and improve outcomes. Managers facilitated knowledge sharing through emails, team meetings, handovers, and information boards.

Staff used recognised tools to improve the detection and response to clinical deterioration, supporting patient safety and enhancing outcomes. The service conducted regular and comprehensive audits to ensure clinical compliance in key areas such as pain management, medication, and infection prevention.

A pain and complication audit carried out in 2025 involving 54 patients showed that most people experienced minimal pain. Two individuals reported moderate pain between days 3 and 5 post-surgery, no one experienced maximum pain, and 5 reported itching 5 days after their procedure.

The service monitored complaints, concerns, compliments, and satisfaction feedback. A complaints policy was available on the website, outlining response timescales. A central register was maintained for both informal and formal complaints. The RM held responsibility for ensuring complaints were managed appropriately, and we saw evidence of this during the inspection. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the complaints policy and procedures for managing concerns. The RM maintained oversight of all concerns, and we saw evidence of appropriate actions being taken within expected response times. There had been no complaints related to patient outcomes in the 12 months prior to the inspection.

Follow-up contact and care were provided at appropriate intervals after discharge, ensuring continuity of support and ongoing service input. Patients had the option to attend the clinic for follow-up reviews.

Outcomes consistently exceeded national standards. We saw evidence of benchmarking audits comparing the service with other providers. The service implemented a comprehensive programme of repeated audits to track improvements over time and used findings to enhance patient outcomes. Audit results were shared with staff during meetings to support understanding and application of learning. We saw evidence of outcomes, between June 2024 and June 2025, 375 patients were contacted post treatment, with 100% pleased with outcomes. The service reported that in the 12 months leading up to June 2025, it had carried out 257 follicular unit excision (FUE) procedures, with a complication rate of 0.77% and a revision rate of 0%.

The service monitored their transection rates on a case by case basis. Transection occurs when the hair follicles are cut or damaged during the procedure. The British Association of Hair Restoration Surgery (BAHRS) described an acceptable transection rate as ten percent with the gold standard being below five percent. We saw evidence of graft statistics that included a hair per graft count of 2.72, a partial transection rate of 1.4% and a total transection rate of 0%.

Inspection evidence and service data confirmed that the service had effective processes in place to audit, implement, and monitor actions for service improvement, with continuous checks to sustain progress.

Doctors emphasised the importance of ensuring individuals had realistic expectations about their procedures. This approach supported the management of outcomes and patient satisfaction.

At the time of inspection, the service had carried out 528 surgeries across 2024 and 2025, alongside 495 new client consultations. The service used quality control sheets to monitor grafts and assess the consistency and quality of work undertaken by doctors and technicians. A photographic studio was also used to monitor surgical outcomes and satisfaction rates.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service ensured that individuals were fully informed about their rights regarding consent. Staff provided clear explanations to support understanding and enable informed decision-making. Managers reported that once a surgery date was confirmed, the service sent patients a health questionnaire and a consent form to review prior to attending surgery.

On the day of surgery, staff checked patient records to confirm that an appropriate surgical plan was in place and that valid consent had been obtained.

All staff had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and demonstrated a clear understanding of its core principles. During observations, staff consistently sought consent before providing support, offering choices in line with MCA requirements.

Staff had access to comprehensive consent guidelines, which included clear instructions on recording consent and identifying situations where consent was not required. Mandatory training for all staff included a recognised training module for learning disability education, ensuring a well-informed workforce.

The service only provided procedures for adults aged 18 and over. Staff explained that if a person lacked capacity to make their own decisions—such as those living with dementia or a learning disability—they would carry out an assessment during the initial consultation to determine eligibility for the procedure.

The service had an up-to-date consent policy. Staff understood how and when to assess whether a person had the capacity to make decisions about their care. All care records reviewed during the inspection, including consent forms, confirmed that patients had received the required 14-day cooling-off period prior to consenting to surgery. This was in line with the recommendations set out in the Royal College of Surgeons publication Professional Standards for Cosmetic Practice.