The KSL Clinic Ltd Manchester

Updated 22 September 2022

The KSL Clinic Ltd Manchester is operated by KSL Limited. The service registered with us in 2018. The service has not been previously inspected. However, the service has been monitored through our engagement and transitional monitoring approach.

The service is registered to provide the regulated activities:

• diagnostic and screening procedures
• surgical procedures
• treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The service provides hair transplant cosmetic surgery, platelet-rich plasma hair restoration therapy and scalp laser hair therapy for private fee-paying adults. The service offers scalp, beard, sideburn and eyebrow transplants.

The service uses the follicular unit excision method of hair transplant cosmetic surgery. In follicular unit excision, individual hair follicles are extracted and then implanted into small incisions in the patient’s scalp. We do not regulate or inspect cosmetic procedures that do not involve cutting or inserting instruments or equipment into the body. The service provides platelet-rich plasma hair restoration therapy as a stand-alone treatment or alongside hair transplant procedures. The therapy involves extracting plasma from the patient’s blood and injecting it into the scalp to promote hair growth.

The service completed 322 hair transplants between July 2021 and June 2022.

There is currently no mandatory accredited qualification for hair transplant surgery in the United Kingdom. However, the surgical steps of the procedure should only be performed by a General Medical Council (GMC) licensed doctor. The doctors who performed the hair transplant procedures at The KSL Clinic Ltd Manchester were licensed GMC doctors at the time of the inspection.

The service is based in an office complex in Salford, Greater Manchester and is close to the motorway with good public transport links. The premises were over two floors with three treatment rooms all based on the first floor.

The team included a registered manager, clinic manager, receptionist, patient co-ordinator, consultant, doctors and hair technicians.

We did not receive any information of concern about the service prior to the inspection, and there were no serious incidents or safeguarding alerts.

Updated 22 September 2022

We have not previously rated this service. 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, and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. 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. They followed the two-stage consent process.
• 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.
• The service planned care to meet patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• 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 were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Staff did not complete baseline observations for each patient prior to surgery and discharge.
• The premises were not fully accessible as they did not have wheelchair access to the first floor.
• Though the service had a vision, it did not have a clear strategy or objectives to achieve its vision, as this was still being developed.
• Leaders did not always operate effective governance processes. The service did not always have systems to monitor the effectiveness of care and treatment and audit this to improve outcomes for patients. Though they monitored the rate of surgical site infections through patient safety incidents, the system to monitor, and therefore improve, revision rates was new and not yet completed or embedded.

Updated 22 September 2022

We have not previously rated this service. We rated it as good overall as it was safe, effective, caring and responsive. However, we rated well-led as requires improvement. See summary above for details.