The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

The Epsom Skin Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

11 Depot Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT17 4RJ (01372) 737280

Provided and run by:
Forever Young Medical Aesthetics Limited

All Inspections

13 May 2021

During a routine inspection

We have not rated the service before. 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 lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Services were available seven days a week.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
  • 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.
  • There was culture of progress embedded in the leadership team. Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Managers were constantly reviewing and making changes and improvements to the clinic. Staff understood the service’s vision and values and felt respected, supported and valued. There was a culture of patient focused practice among all staff. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • There was no appointed safeguarding lead.
  • The service did not collect quality patient reported outcome measures (QPROMS) for patients undergoing blepharoplasty (surgery to remove excess skin or fat from the eyelids).
  • The clinic had access to a telephone interpreting service. However, the service used staff and family members to interpret as needed so staff could not be sure correct information was given to the patient.
  • Pre-assessment documents did not prompt staff to evaluate patients’ psychological state.

14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We visited The Epsom Skin Clinic and looked at the care and treatment of people who used the service. During our inspection we spoke to two staff members and the manager.We also received four responses to a patient survey we left in the waiting area.

All of the people we asked were very happy with the service. A person who used the service told us 'The service here is literally perfect.' They went onto say 'A member of staff is fabulous at what they do;her knowledge and care are second to none.'

All of the people we asked stated that staff had involved them in the discussions about their treatment and care. We saw that care and treatment had been planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare.

At our inspection in January 2013, we raised concerns about the cleanliness and infection control processes of the clinic. During this visit, we saw that the provider had not made all of the improvements required to be compliant with the regulations.

At our inspection in January 2013, we raised concerns about the arrangements that were in place to manage medicines. During this visit we still found concerns that related to the storage, monitoring and management of medicines.

The provider informed us of the process they used to recruit staff. We found however there was a lack of employment checks,such as references and criminal checks completed before staff had been employed.

We saw that the provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and that information about how to complain was available to people in a format that met their needs.

3, 14 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We made two unannounced visits to this location because during the first visit the registered manager and their deputy were absent on a week's leave. This meant we were unable to obtain and review a number of important records relating to the standards of safety and quality we wished to inspect.

We spoke to five people who used the service during our visit. They all spoke positively of their experiences and the care they had received from staff. One person told us "The doctor was very good and very caring." Another person told us "Everyone here is very nice. If you are not happy they will always try to help. They want to get things right." We observed that staff were calm, professional and courteous in their dealings with people using the service.

We found that people had been given full information about the treatments and had been able to make informed decisions about their care. These consents were recorded.

The premises were tidy and well maintained however we found that improvement was needed in the management of cleaning standards. We also found that improvements were needed in the way that medicines were stored and checked.

Staff were trained to provide the service and felt happy and supported in their work.

There was a system in place to gather feedback from people who used the service and to implement improvements and develop the service in response to this.