Riverbanks Clinic

Updated 10 March 2022

Riverbanks Clinic is operated by R J Medical Consultants Limited. The clinic opened in 2011. It is a private clinic located in East Hyde, near Luton. The clinic primarily serves the communities of London and Hertfordshire. The service provides consultation and minor cosmetic surgery treatment to self-funding patients.

The main service provided by the clinic is minor cosmetic surgery, for example mole removal, liposuction, face lifts and Botox treatment. All surgery is performed as a day case with local anaesthesia. The clinic also offered a private GP service. The clinic offered cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and laser hair removal, rejuvenation treatments and other cosmetic treatments which are not a regulated activity. Therefore we did not inspect these procedures.

The clinic has no inpatient beds. Facilities include a reception area with co-located washroom and toilet, a consulting room, two treatment rooms, one theatre and a staff room, washroom and toilet.

The staff comprise of the medical director who is a GP on the GMC General Practitioner Register and is also the registered manager, a surgical manager and senior medical aesthetician. Additional GPs did work for the service under practicing privileges agreements, but these agreements were terminated during COVID-19 to reduce the risk of transmission.

The service has had a registered manager in post since 2011 and is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Diagnostic and screening procedures
• Surgical procedures
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

We last inspected the service in October 2013 where it met CQC standards.

Updated 10 March 2022

Riverbanks Clinic is operated by R J Medical Consultants Limited. The clinic opened in 2011. It is a private clinic located in East Hyde, near Luton. The clinic primarily serves the communities of London and Hertfordshire. The service provides consultation and minor cosmetic surgery treatment to self-funding patients aged over 18. The service also treated children and young adults for skin conditions which was not a regulated activity

The main service provided by the clinic is minor cosmetic surgery, for example mole removal, liposuction, face lifts and Botox treatment. All surgery is performed as a day case with local anaesthesia. The clinic also offered a private GP service.

The clinic offered cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and laser hair removal, rejuvenation treatments and other cosmetic treatments which are not a regulated activity. We, therefore, did not inspect these procedures.

The service was inspected because it had not been inspected since 2013. The service had previously been inspected using the old methodology when the service was found to meet all the standards.

We completed this inspection using the current methodology, to identify whether the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

This was the services first inspection using this methodology. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients pain relief when they needed it. The registered manager 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 had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their treatment.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• The registered manager ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

However:

• The services’ risk register did not outline clinical risks associated with the treatments provided.
• Meeting minutes were not detailed.

Updated 10 March 2022

This was the service’s first inspection using this methodology. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. managed safety incidents well and learned from them.

• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients pain relief when they needed it. The registered manager 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 had access to good information.

• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their treatment.

• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

• The registered manager ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

However:

• The service’s risk register did not outline clinical risks associated with the treatments provided.

• Meeting minutes were not detailed.

Following this inspection, we told the registered manager that they should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.