Background to this inspection
Updated
16 September 2021
The Chiltern Medical Clinic Reading is operated by Medical Skin Clinics Ltd. It is a private clinic located in the centre of Reading, Berkshire. The service registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 5 May 2017, with the purpose of providing cosmetic surgery to self-funding patients.
This service had a registered manager in post since 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage a service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’.
The service is registered to provide the regulated activities:
- Surgical procedures.
- Diagnostic and screening procedures,
- Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.
It is an independent clinic which had a treatment room, three therapist rooms, two waiting rooms, and two consultation rooms. Directly employed therapists and administration staff worked alongside medical staff who worked under practicing privileges.
The service carried out 177 cosmetic procedures from June 2020 to July 2021. These included mole and other skin lesion surgery, earlobe repair, and thread facelift. The service provides cosmetic surgery to patients over the age of 18. The clinic provides some treatments for children not regulated by the CQC.
We carried out a short notice inspection on 20 July 2021 using our comprehensive inspection methodology.
The service had not previously been inspected.
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.
Updated
16 September 2021
We rated Chiltern Medical Centre - Reading as requires improvement because:
- Although we found the service largely performed well, it did not meet legal requirements relating to safe care and treatment, and good governance, meaning we could not give it a rating higher than requires improvement.
- The service did not ensure all risks were assessed by a person with relevant skills.
- The service did not have effective governance processes to assess, monitor and improve the service.
- The service did not always assess patients’ individual needs prior to attending an appointment.
However:
- The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
- Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers 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. Key services were available seven days a week.
- 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, families and carers.
- People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
- Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.