The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Health & Aesthetic Clinic Limited T/A Health and Aesthetics Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

374 Shooter's Hill Road, London, SE18 4LS

Provided and run by:
Health & Aesthetic Clinic Limited

All Inspections

15 May 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We previously carried out an announced inspection of Health and Aesthetics Clinic, 374 Shooter's Hill Road, London, on the 22 August 2022. We found the practice was in breach of Regulation 17 (Good Governance) of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The service was rated good overall and rated good for the key questions of safe, effective, caring and responsive and requires improvement for well-led.

The full report of the previous inspection can be found by selecting all reports linked for health and aesthetics clinic on our website www.cqc.org.uk

We carried out a focused inspection on the 15 May 2023, to review the improvements made by the service in response to the breach of regulation.

We have rated the service Good overall.

We have rated the service Good for providing a well led service:

The Clinic is a private doctor-led aesthetic clinic that carries out non-surgical treatments such as skin peels, dermal fillers, laser body contouring and a range of other treatments. At the time of the inspection the provider did not offer a slimming clinic or a GP service.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The Health and Aesthetic clinic provide a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example Botox, which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The clinical lead is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

  • At our previous inspection on the 22 August 2022, we rated well-led as requires improvement because we were unable to be assured that the recently implemented governance systems were sustainable. At this inspection we found the provider

had responded to our findings and had fully embedded the new governance and risk systems.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to keep a record of all recruitment and training documents for all staff.
  • The service should follow the guidelines for staff immunisations as recommended in The Green Book - Information for public health.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

21 July to 1 August 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 8 August 2012 where the service was not rated and was found complaint with the relevant regulations)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Requires improvement

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Health and Aesthetics Clinic, 374 Shooter's Hill Road, London, to determine a CQC rating of the key questions and overall.

The Clinic is a private doctor-led aesthetic clinic that carries out non-surgical treatments such as skin peels, dermal fillers, laser liposuction, body contouring and a range of other treatments. At the time of the inspection the provider did not offer a slimming clinic.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The Health and Aesthetic clinic provide a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example Botox, which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The clinical lead is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service used online patient reviews to monitor patient feedback. We saw the provider had 229 reviews which rated the service as four point six out of five stars with the majority of reviews being positive about the staff and describing them as professional. The service replied to all of the reviews.

Our key findings were:

  • On the day of the inspection the provider was unable to provide evidence that the systems and processes were effective in some areas of the services governance. For example, there was a lack of oversight of training, and the systems to manage significant events, safety alerts, recruitment, and health and safety.
  • We found in some areas the policies to assure the service was operating as intended were ineffective and did not reflect the services practices.
  • Patients’ immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed. Where appropriate this included their clinical needs and their mental and physical wellbeing.
  • The clinic had an infection control policy and procedures were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
  • The clinic shared relevant information with other services appropriately and in a timely way.
  • The clinic had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Patient feedback indicated they found it easy and convenient to make appointments at the clinic.
  • The clinic had a comprehensive complaints policy. Patient feedback was encouraged.
  • The clinic had a clear vision and strategy to deliver high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Only supply unlicensed medicines against valid special clinical needs of an individual patient where there is no suitable licensed medicine available.
  • Consider carrying out internal audits of the treatments carried out by staff to ensure best practice and the safety of treatments.
  • Keep a record of all training for all staff.
  • Put a system in place to ensure patient safety when they refuse pathology testing.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

8 August 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 8 August 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Health & Aesthetic Clinic is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the regulated activities of Treatment of disease, disorder or injury, Diagnostic and Screening Procedures, Family Planning Services and Services in slimming clinics. The address of the registered provider is Health & Aesthetic Clinic Ltd, 374 Shooters Hill, London, SE18 4LS.

The clinic’s manager is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

As part of our inspection we asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received 30 comment cards which were all positive about the standard of care received at the clinic.

Our key findings were:

  • The clinic had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the clinic learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The clinic routinely carried out audits required by the British College of Aesthetic Medicine and reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • The clinic encouraged and valued feedback from clients.

There were areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Introduce ways to capture the information discussed during monthly clinical meetings, to mitigate risks after staff absence
  • Implement processes to receive, implement and monitor medicines and safety alerts.
  • Introduce a comprehensive process of quality assurance and quality improvement to enhance patient care and outcomes
  • Complete an emergency medicines risk assessment and put in place arrangements to mitigate any risk identified.

28 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with were happy with the care they received. People told us that the service they received was very good and the doctor explained any treatment or tests that were needed. One person told us that the staff were always professional and sought their consent prior to examining them or carrying out any treatment. Another person told us that although it was her first time at the centre they were satisfied.

We found that people were involved in the decision about their care and were given adequate information about their treatment. The care was planned and delivered in a way that met people's needs and consent was sought prior to treatment being carried out. The provider responded to any concerns raised promptly, although the provider had not received any complaints within the last 12 months relating to medical care. Records were stored securely and there was a procedure in place for prescribing medication if required.

30 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak with anyone using the service as the clinic did not have anyone using it on the day of our inspection.

At our inspection we found the clinic to be visibly clean and well lit. The clinic had disabled persons access including a ramp and a lift. The emergency equipment was in date and readily available and training for basic life support had been attended by staff and we saw the certificates in staff files. We saw that peoples records were kept securely and that these records were maintained and consents and medical information were current and signed by staff and service users.

Staff told us that satisfaction surveys were completed by people using the service and there was a high level of satisfaction with the service. The results of these surveys were displayed in the waiting area.

We saw that the service had a range of written material and information available to service users including the chaperone policy and the complaints procedure displayed in the waiting area. We found that medicines were stored safely and appropriately, we saw temperature logs and prescriptions for the dispensing of Prescription Only Medicines.

Staff had attended safeguarding training and there were safeguarding procedures in place. We saw a range of relevant and audited protocols and procedures. We saw that all consultation rooms were private and allowed for privacy and dignity of service users.