Archived: Cosmedics Clinics Putney

This service is rated as Good overall.

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? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cosmedics Clinics Putney on the 1 July 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

Cosmedics Clinics Putney provides private medical, cosmetic and beauty therapy services.

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. Cosmedics Clinics Harley Street provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example anti-ageing injections and dermal fillers which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

Dr Ross Perry 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:

• The service had systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. There was a fire policy, procedure and regular equipment checks and drills, and all staff had completed fire training. The service lead was the lead member of staff for safeguarding and had undertaken adult safeguarding to level two and child safeguarding training to level three.
• The service did not stock all the recommended emergency medicines at the premises and no formal risk assessment had been completed to support this decision. A formal risk assessment was sent to us shortly after the inspection.
• The service learned and made improvements when things went wrong. However, we found that there were examples of events that could usefully have been considered as significant events that had not been formally reviewed, and not all significant events had been fully documented.
• The service had a system in place to share safety alerts with to all members of staff. We heard examples of action taken as a result, but this was not recorded.
• There was quality improvement activity, although this was not consistent across the whole service.
• Patients were able to access care and treatment from the clinic within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
• There was a complaints procedure in place and information on how to complain was readily available.
• Governance arrangements were in place. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
• The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
• The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• The service had systems in place to collect and analyse feedback from patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review the systems for the dissemination of safety alerts and the logging of any actions taken, and for ensuring that all significant events are identified and fully recorded.
• Review measures of effectiveness to develop comprehensive measures across all of the services offered.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care