Tajmeel Clinic Ltd

Updated 25 July 2022

The Tajmeel Clinic is a small private clinic offering a range of cosmetic treatments, including hair transplant, beard transplant and restoration, and cosmetic treatments. Most of these fall out of scope of regulation under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. Of the treatments carried out, only hair transplant procedures and PDO thread lift (a procedure that uses dissolvable sutures to rejuvenate and lift sagging skin) fall into scope of CQC regulation. The service is registered with CQC to carry out the regulated activity of surgical procedures.

The clinic accepts self-referrals and provides privately funded cosmetic and hair transplant procedures by appointment.

Activity (1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022)

The service had carried out:

• 28 hair transplant procedures and
• 21 PDO lifts (procedure that uses dissolvable sutures to tighten and reposition sagging skin)

There was one surgeon and a technician employed by the clinic. In addition, a registered nurse provided support with surgical hair transplant procedures when required to assist.

There is a registered manager, who is also the owner of Tajmeel Clinic Ltd. The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in 2019. This was the first inspection we carried out for this provider and at this location. The location is registered with CQC to provide surgical procedures for adults.

The service had not reported any never events or serious patient safety incidents, including surgical wound infections in the 12 months before our inspection.

Updated 25 July 2022

This was the first time we inspected the service. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Governance processes were not effective to demonstrate oversight of patient safety and outcomes and risks were not captured. There were no written documents to show the service used evidence-based care.
• Information required to support safe recruitment processes was not all collected and reviewed in line with legislation.
• Follow up information about patients were not recorded in patients’ electronic records. Patients were not always reviewed in line with their policy. The medicines given were not always recorded accurately in patients’ notes.
• Staff did not always act on risk assessments in relation to mental health needs and did not maintain full contemporaneous patient records.
• Risk assessments for substances hazardous to health were not fully completed.
• There were no formal processes to ensure staff received annual appraisals.
• Information about how to make a complaint was not provided on the service’s website.

However,

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in most key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well and mostly managed medicines well.
• The service monitored patient outcomes. They gave patients pain relief then they needed it and made sure staff were competent.
• 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 as required.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait for treatment. No complaints had been made to the service in the 12 months before our inspection.
• Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving treatment and were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients.

Updated 25 July 2022

This was the first time we inspected the service. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Governance processes were not effective to demonstrate oversight of patient safety and outcomes and risks were not captured. There were no written documents to show the service used evidence-based care.
• Information required to support safe recruitment processes was not all collected and reviewed in line with legislation.
• Follow up information about patients were not recorded in patients’ electronic records. Patients were not always reviewed in line with their policy. The medicines given were not always recorded accurately in patients’ notes.
• Staff did not always act on risk assessments in relation to mental health needs and did not maintain full contemporaneous patient records.
• Risk assessments for substances hazardous to health were not fully completed.
• There were no formal processes to ensure staff received annual appraisals.
• Information about how to make a complaint was not provided on the service’s website.

However,

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in most key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well and mostly managed medicines well.
• The service monitored patient outcomes. They gave patients pain relief then they needed it and made sure staff were competent.
• 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 as required.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait for treatment. No complaints had been made to the service in the 12 months before our inspection.
• Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving treatment and were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients.