Farjo Hair Institute

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Care and treatment was calm, respectful and anticipatory, with those using the service providing consistently positive feedback. Farjo Hair Institute tailored services to meet individual needs, with flexibility and choice in treatment options. Detailed care plans reflected responsiveness to requirements and access to services was timely, with minimal waiting times. Complaints were rare, addressed promptly and used to improve the service provided.

The service demonstrated a strong understanding of diverse health and care needs, delivering integrated, flexible care that supported choice and continuity. People received accurate, up-to-date information and were encouraged to provide feedback, ideas, and complaints, which were used for learning and improvement.

This service scored 75 (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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service delivered personalised care by engaging staff in meaningful conversations with patients to identify what mattered most to them. Staff documented individual needs clearly and consistently. One person told us, “I want to thank the whole team for the five-star service they provided. The attention to personal detail and care from the whole team was second to none.”

Staff told us that they discussed each person’s clinical and personal needs prior to commencing scans, ensuring patients felt informed and involved in their care.

The service scheduled 1 patient per day, per theatre, which enabled extended recovery times when required. Staff arranged appointments to suit individual preferences, and consultations were available at alternative locations to enhance accessibility.

Managers demonstrated a strong understanding of the patient group and ensured the service offered both Follicular Unit Excision (FUE) and Follicular Unit Transplant (FUT) procedures. They also provided a range of non-surgical treatments, recognising that not all individuals attending consultations would require surgical intervention. These non-surgical treatments fell outside the scope of CQC regulation and were therefore not included in this report.

Patients told us they felt empowered to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Staff provided sufficient time and information, enabling individuals to choose options that best suited their personal needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Appointments were arranged via telephone, email, or through the service’s website. Patients could submit photographs electronically prior to their initial assessment, which supported early evaluation. The service used internet video calling for patients based overseas; this was primarily to assess initial suitability and did not replace the requirement for a face-to-face consultation.

People who used the service told us they found the website easy to navigate and received further information within two days of their initial contact.

Staff held daily huddles at the start of each day to plan activities and discuss any risks or issues. Directors used their professional networks to recommend surgeons in other countries when appropriate. Staff used a whiteboard to make real-time adjustments on surgery days, which improved procedural efficiency. During our inspection, we saw evidence of this system being used to manage staffing numbers and allocations.

Follow-up appointments were scheduled at 8 months and 14 months post-surgery. Consultations were typically conducted in person to allow for detailed examination and the use of reference photographs.

A mobile hair technician team operated between the London and Manchester sites, working alongside the doctor and patient manager. This arrangement supported continuity of care for patients initially assessed in London but who underwent surgery in Manchester.

In the previous 12 months, the service cancelled 2 procedures due to patients requiring dermatologist referrals at the pre-operative stage.

People who used the service told us their procedures were well coordinated. They reported that staff planned and delivered care in a way that met their individual needs and confirmed they had not experienced any issues or delays with appointments or consultations. The service provided dedicated car parking spaces at the rear of the premises. The waiting area was spacious and offered a suitable environment for patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People told us that staff engaged them in comprehensive discussions about their treatment. One person said, “There is always a full discussion about any decisions made and doctors always allow me time to ask questions. I feel fully informed and confident about my decisions.”

The service provided accurate, up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Staff ensured that patients and their families understood the care and treatment being offered. They took time to explain information clearly and encouraged questions where clarification was needed. People confirmed they understood the information provided and felt comfortable asking further questions if required.

Staff communicated in ways that people could understand, using communication aids when necessary. We observed staff using a range of approaches to support understanding, including videos that explained procedures in detail and whiteboard illustrations during consultations.

Staff held sensitive discussions about treatment costs during the consultation stage. They ensured all potential costs were explained so that patients had full financial information before deciding whether to proceed with surgery.

People accessed information about the service via the provider’s website and social media platforms. They received verbal and written information prior to undergoing procedures. Patients told us they had been given clear guidance on aftercare, medication, and how to recognise signs of infection. One person shared that they had contacted their surgeon after discharge with a concern about infection. The surgeon then liaised with the patient’s GP, who arranged a face-to-face appointment as the patient was not local to the service.

Notice boards displayed information for both staff and patients, and information leaflets were readily available. Staff confirmed they could provide written materials in different languages or formats if required.

Staff shared information about performance, safety incidents, audits, and complaints during daily huddles and routine meetings. Policies and guidelines were available in both paper and electronic formats. Paper records were stored securely, and electronic care records were password-protected and easily accessible to staff.

All staff had completed mandatory training in cyber security and information governance. The service had external IT support arrangements to manage electronic information security and provide assistance in the event of a system failure.

There had been no Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) reportable data breaches in the 12 months prior to our inspection.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service actively encouraged and supported people to provide feedback about their care, ensuring their voices were heard and valued. Accessible feedback channels include an online form that allowed people to submit compliments, comments, and suggestions. We saw evidence of these being reviewed and collated by the service.

For complaints, patients were encouraged to raise concerns with any staff member, which were then discussed with the patient manager during the consultation. If concerns remained unresolved, people could escalate them through a formal complaints process via letter or email. Information about these processes was prominently displayed throughout the service, promoting transparency and accessibility.

Patients received feedback from managers following complaint investigations. We saw evidence of this in the form of an email sent to a patient. A complaints policy was in place, and staff were able to explain how they would manage a complaint. The RM investigated complaints and identified recurring themes. Managers made changes to the service in direct response to patient feedback, and staff gave examples of how they used this feedback to improve daily practice. We were told a patient had expressed dissatisfaction over gender-related wording on a prescription form that they felt misaligned with their identity. The service, focused on safe prescribing, revised the forms wording, with input from the patient. We saw evidence that the patient was pleased with the resolution and had offered future assistance indicating a positive outcome. Leaders told us they viewed concerns and complaints as opportunities for learning and service improvement.

There was 1 formal complaint recorded across 2024 and 2025. This related to a delay in a prescription order and was resolved by the senior administrator and RM. We saw evidence that this complaint was logged using a centralised system and followed up through appropriate channels.

Staff told us they explained expected outcomes to patients prior to surgical procedures. People confirmed that these expectations had been clearly communicated before entering into any contractual agreements.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to equity of access. It proactively analysed data, ensured universal availability of its services, and participated in research aimed at addressing health inequalities.

The service had previously formed a partnership with a charitable foundation to provide treatment for patients who had suffered burns but had been declined NHS funding.

The service supported a diverse patient population. The premises were fully wheelchair accessible, with a car park located at the rear of the building that enabled access via a lift. Lift access was available to all floors, and accessible toilets were provided throughout the building.

Managers planned and organised services to meet the needs of the local population. However, patients did not need to reside locally to access care, provided they were willing to travel to the clinic. For those living at a distance, the service offered remote appointments. The clinic’s proximity to Manchester Airport also supported international patients.

Managers actively monitored waiting times and ensured timely access to services. Patients did not experience delays from initial booking or referral to the day of their procedure. The service maintained sufficient capacity to schedule appointments promptly, based on individual preferences, and did not have any backlogs or waiting lists.

People who used the service reported receiving treatment in a prompt and timely manner. They did not experience long waits when booking their initial consultation or upon arrival for their procedure. Patients confirmed they received clear information regarding treatment timelines.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff followed the provider’s equality, diversity and inclusion policy, which demonstrated a clear commitment to embedding diversity, promoting equal opportunities, and supporting non-discriminatory practices in the delivery of care and treatment. All new and existing policies and procedures included equality impact assessments.

All staff had completed mandatory training in equality, diversity, and human rights. They were able to describe how they embedded equity in their practice and ensured care and treatment decisions were made without discrimination, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

People who used the service told us their needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff. They reported being treated equally and in a non-discriminatory manner.

Due to the nature of the procedures provided, it was not always possible to differentiate outcomes for people with protected characteristics. However, we reviewed data relating to incidents, patient feedback, and complaints, and found no evidence of disparities in care experiences, adverse outcomes, or inequalities.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions.

Staff held conversations with patients about future treatment needs, which helped people feel supported and in control of their care. One person told us, “I’ve been given advice and information to ensure I get the best results from my treatment.”

The service delivered a thorough aftercare process. We saw evidence that staff made regular calls and held meetings with patients following surgery to monitor recovery and provide ongoing support.

The doctor prescribed pain relief for each patient to take home, along with detailed instructions on when and how to take the medication if needed. Post-operative guidance advised patients to contact the clinic if they continued to experience pain three days after their procedure. Staff discussed this advice with patients before discharge and offered them the opportunity to return to the clinic for a review if they had any concerns about pain at any time following surgery.