CJA Medical

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

Responsive - We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs through good organisation and delivery.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Requires Improvement.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

Staff demonstrated awareness of how the service considered people’s preferences and how these were taken into consideration when co-ordinating care. Where appropriate, staff included dependants and family members in the consultation process and procedures were in place to share decision-making about their treatment.

People experienced care that was tailored to their individual aesthetic goals and preferences. Staff listened to what mattered to them, took time to understand desired outcomes, and adapted consultations accordingly. Treatment plans reflected personalised discussions and staff encouraged people to ask questions and make informed choices.

From the clinical records we reviewed during the site visit, we determined staff were supportive and respectful of people’s decisions relating to their treatment options and planning. They felt able to discuss concerns openly and were given adequate time during appointments.

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.

The service ensured longer appointments were available for those with additional needs as part of their reasonable adjustment processes. Care and treatment were delivered to ensure continuityand supported people’s preferences. For example, the service received professional guidance relating to the provision of care and treatment. In particular, the service used nationally approved clinical templates to support compliance with aesthetic treatment standards and documentation of clinical notes to inform future care planning.

Staff ensured people received timely follow‑up, including reviews after procedures, and clear advice about aftercare. Consultation notes we reviewed were noted to be up‑to‑date and contained sufficient detail to support continuity.

The service had appropriate pathways for referring people externally when necessary. For example, when a procedure was not clinically appropriate or when medical review was required, such as suspected skin cancer or for further dermatological review.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had met the Accessible Information Standards. Reasonable adjustments were available to support people with their communication needs, including the use of interpreters during consultations. During our on-site visit we observed information relating to usage of CCTV cameras and chaperoning guidance was not available. However, immediately after the on-site visit this was rectified to ensure leaflets were available in the reception area and posters were displayed to provide people with information on the service and the provision available to them. A private room was available if people were distressed or wanted to discuss sensitive issues. There were arrangements to ensure confidentiality at the reception desk and during telephone calls.

People were given the information they needed in a way they could understand. Staff explained procedures, risks, alternative options and aftercare using plain language. Written information, including consent documents and post‑treatment guidance, was easy to follow. Staff encouraged people to take time to consider treatments and signposted reputable sources of further information. They checked understanding before proceeding and ensured decisions were fully informed.

The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service confirmed it did not seek and act on feedback from people on the services provided, for the purposes of continually evaluating and improving services. Therefore, the service was unable to demonstrate oversight of themes and trends to support improvement in experience and outcomes, such as through surveys or other feedback methods. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. The service was also unable to demonstrate how a review or response to feedback which had been published online would be undertaken. This was despite there being evidence of online reviews having been posted about the service.

However, information was displayed on the service’s website to support people to raise any concerns or complaints. Complaints were investigated and resolved in line with service policy. The service was accredited with SaveFace, which assists services to provide a structured, multi-stage complaint adjudication process for people dissatisfied with non-surgical cosmetic treatments (such as Botox or fillers) carried out by accredited staff.

During our assessment, we reviewed a sample of complaints, and we noted these were investigated and responded to appropriately in line with service policy. Where appropriate, people were provided with an apology and signposted to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS).

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had timely access to initial assessment and treatment. For example, people had a choice of time and day when booking their appointment. The service was open Monday to Saturday with a range of opening hours including additional consultations across the branch sites in Winchester and Portsmouth. Waiting times, delays and cancellations were minimal and managed appropriately. Appointments and consultations could be booked via telephone, walking-in. People could only book online cosmetic consultations via the website, ensuring that no aesthetic procedures were scheduled before a clinical assessment had determined the person's suitability for treatment. The service’s main premises allowed for treatments on the ground floor, improving accessibility for those with physical disabilities.

Peoples’ accessibility and communication needs were recorded in their clinical records. Staff were trained to ensure people were directed to the most appropriate part of the service. Staff had access to the future care planning templates on the service’s clinical records system which incorporated checks for people’s wishes, mental capacity and any reasonable adjustments required.

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 treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes, such as providing arrangements for delivering care which met people's needs. For example, the service planned care delivery to ensure people with physical or learning disabilities or for those who required further communication requirements were supported. The service also had processes to ensure people could seek guidance and support in relation to aesthetic and cosmetic procedures prior to proceeding with treatment, ensuring this was appropriate for the individual, whilst giving people the opportunity to reflect on their treatment plans with no obligation to proceed. Staff had a good understanding of the people who used their service and told us they felt confident in improving outcomes for people.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to consider their wishes for treatment planning in line with any complex health conditions people were already undergoing. This information was shared with other services when necessary.