MO Surgical Aesthetics Limited

Updated 3 July 2023

MO Surgical Aesthetics Limited is operated by City Clinics Group Limited and provides day case surgical hair transplant services for private patients over the age of 18. The service is led by a consultant surgeon who is the registered manager with CQC for two locations in London and Sheffield. The Sheffield service was registered by CQC on 19 April 2021. MO Surgical Aesthetics Limited used the premises in Sheffield by formal arrangement with another CQC registered provider.

The clinic is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Surgical Procedures

• Diagnostic and screening,

• Treatment of disease disorder and injury

Of the two methods of hair transplantation available, the service provided follicular unit extraction (FUE). This means individual follicles are extracted and then implanted into small excisions in the patient’s scalp. All procedures are undertaken using local anaesthesia.

Activity for 8 June 2022 to 20 March 2023:

• The clinic carried out 46 FUE day case procedures.

• The clinic undertook 80 new consultation appointments, of which 23 were face-to-face and 57 virtual.
• The clinic also undertook 167 follow up appointments.

We had not previously inspected the service.

Updated 3 July 2023

This report describes our judgement of the quality of care at this service. It is based on a combination of what we found when we inspected, information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and information given to us from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We rated it as good because:

• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients.
• People could access the service when they needed it. Staff provided effective care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. The service made it easy for people to give feedback.
• Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care and treatment.
• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. The service had very few safety incidents and learned lessons from those that had occurred.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued and were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities and were committed to improving services continually. The service engaged well with patients and each member of staff.

However,

• The entrance to the first-floor treatment room and to the second floor of the building were by two flights of rather steep narrow staircases which limited accessibility in the event of a patient deteriorating. In the theatre area, buzzers were not available to alert trained members of staff.
• Equipment to support the deteriorating patient did not meet the requirements for a hospital theatre setting.
• Care records were incomplete.

Updated 3 July 2023

We had not previously rated this service. We rated it as good because:

• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients.
• The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it. Staff provided effective care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it.
• Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care.
• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. The service had very few safety incidents and learned lessons from those that had occurred.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development. Staff felt respected, supported and valued and were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.
• Leaders operated effective governance processes and were committed to continually improving services. The service engaged well with patients and each member of staff.

However,

• The environment presented some accessibility issues which were not fully addressed by safety arrangements.
• Equipment to support the deteriorating patient did not meet the requirements for a hospital theatre setting.
• Care records were incomplete.

We rated this service as good overall because it was effective, caring, responsive and well led.