- Independent doctor
CJA Medical
We served a warning notice on CJA Medical Ltd on 09 February 2026 for failing to meet regulations relating to good governance at CJA Medical.
Assessment report published 12 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 09 February 2026 – 12 February 2026.
CJA Medical is an independent consulting doctors service that operates from premises leased by the provider, CJA Medical Limited in Ocean Village, Southampton. The service also offers consultations only from leased rooms at clinics based in Portsmouth and Winchester.
This service is registered with the CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some general exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of service, and these are set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The services offered include those that fall under registration, such as Spring thread lift (Silicone with Polyester); PDO (Polydioxanone) thread lift and hyperhidrosis botulinum toxin (Botox) injections (for excessive sweating). Other procedures, which are out of scope of regulation include anti-ageing injectables, hyaluronic acid injections and laser skin tag and hair removal.
This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The service did not have fully effective and embedded processes to mitigate health and safety risks. This included effective control measures to reduce the risks related to infection prevention and control (IPC) and to reduce the risks related to legionella bacteria.
The service did not ensure the dignity, privacy and rights of people who used the service were maintained. In particular, with the use of CCTV surveillance cameras within the service was not compliant with relevant data‑protection requirements. The service did not have effective arrangements in place to ensure safe and appropriate chaperoning, including staff training. As a result, people using the service were exposed to avoidable risks, including potential distress, increased vulnerability to abuse, and the risk of reputational harm to clinicians.
The service did not ensure fire risks had been identified and mitigated in relation to the premises such as, a dedicated fire safety policy detailing fire arrangements across the building or a fire risk assessment relevant to the areas used by the service demonstrating the premises was safe.
The service did not have a programme of audits to monitor and improve the care and treatment it provided. Therefore, the service was unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments provided and to improve outcomes for people. This placed people at risk of not receiving safe and effective care in line with evidence-based guidelines.
However, the service had arrangements to investigate incidents including outcomes shared with staff to mitigate risk and minimise reoccurrence. Leaders understood the challenges of meeting people’s needs and responded flexibility to ensure people could access care and treatment in a timely manner. People were given support to overcome health inequalities to ensure equal experience and outcomes. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment.
We identified 3 breaches of the legal regulations relating to good governance, safe care and treatment and dignity and respect. In instances where CQC has decided to take civil enforcement action against the provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded. We have also asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
People's experience of this service
During the assessment, we asked to see evidence of feedback collected from people regarding their care and treatment. The service told us no such feedback exercises had been conducted.
We received no feedback from people who used the service has part of this assessment, despite us providing the service with a link to our ‘Give Feedback on Care’ online function. However, anecdotal feedback noted via our review of medical records identified positive outcomes for people in relation to the quality of their care and treatment they received.