Juvida Clinic - Skipton

Updated 5 December 2019

Juvida Clinics is operated by Juvida Clinics Ltd. The service opened in 2016. It is a private clinic in Skipton, North Yorkshire.

The clinic offers a specific type of hair transplant service.

The clinic serves local communities and also accepts patient referrals from outside this area including from outside the United Kingdom.

The service was registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Surgical procedures

There has been a registered manager in place since the clinic opened in 2016.

We have not inspected the clinic before.

Updated 5 December 2019

Juvida Clinics is operated by Juvida Clinics Ltd.

Juvida Clinics was opened in October 2016 to serve as an independent private clinic offering hair transplant treatments. The building had two floors with the ground floor delivering treatment for patients and the second floor for staff only.

The clinic offers hair transplants and hair solutions to the general public, adults only.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the short notice element of the inspection on 3 July 2019 along with an additional visit to the clinic on 8 July 2019 in order to gather further evidence to rate the caring domain.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

We had not previously rated this service. We rated it as Good overall.

• We were assured all staff had undertaken mandatory training.

• We were assured all staff had undertaken safeguarding training.

• Staffing levels were safe.

• We saw evidence of audits in place.

• There was a policy for managing the deteriorating patient.

• There was learning from incidents.

• There was evidence the service used national guidance for cosmetic surgery.

• Staff were caring, and patients’ privacy and dignity was respected.

• The service followed guidance for consent.

• The service provided additional support for individuals with physical or mental disabilities.

• The service held staff meetings and we saw evidence of staff involvement in running the service.

• Leaders understood the challenges of maintaining and improving quality.

However:

• We were not assured that there were effective governance structures in place, especially in relation to clinical governance of the medical staff.

• The clinic did not have a strategy for what it wanted to achieve and how.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (area of responsibility), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Updated 5 December 2019

Surgery was the only activity of the service.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring and responsive. However, we were not assured that there were effective governance structures in place, especially in relation to clinical governance. There was a breach of regulation 17. Details are at the end of the report.