Archived: CAMBRIDGE CLEAR BEAUTY

Updated 30 March 2020

Cambridge Clear Beauty is operated by Cambridge Clear Beauty LTD. The clinic opened in 2019. It is a private clinic in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. The clinic primarily serves the communities of Cambridgeshire. It also accepts patients from outside this area.

The clinic has had a registered manager in post since January 2019. We have not previously inspected this service. The service offers a consultation service and minor surgical procedures from the Cambridge Clear Beauty clinic.

The clinic offered cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and laser hair removal, rejuvenation treatments and other cosmetic treatments which are not a regulated activity. We therefore, did not inspect these procedures.

Updated 30 March 2020

Cambridge Clear Beauty is operated by Cambridge Clear Beauty LTD. The clinic has no inpatient beds. Facilities include a reception area, staff room, washroom and toilet, consultation room and treatment room. There were an additional three treatment rooms but these were not used for the regulated activity, so we did not visit these rooms.

The service provided cosmetic surgery services to self-paying or privately funded adults. The clinic only provided treatment to patients aged over 18. The main service provided at the clinic was minor cosmetic surgery, for example mole removal, eye lid surgery (blepharoplasty) and scar revision. All surgery was performed as a day case with local anaesthesia.

The clinic offered cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and laser hair removal, rejuvenation treatments and other cosmetic treatments which are not a regulated activity. We therefore, did not inspect these procedures.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 30 January 2020, along with an unannounced visit to the clinic on 10 February 2020.

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 registered manager understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

We rated it as Good overall.

• The provider 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 provider controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well.

• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. The registered manager 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.

• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their treatments.

• The registered manager 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 too long for treatment.

• Staff understood the registered manager’s vision. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The registered manager engaged well with patients to plan and manage services.

However,

• The registered manager did not operate effective governance processes and there was little evidence that the registered manager discussed, and shared lessons learned from the performance of the service, complaints or incidents.

• The registered manager did not use systems to manage performance effectively, for example monitoring mandatory training compliance.

• The registered manager did not analyse data to understand the performance of the service, make decisions and improvements to the service based on it.

• There was limited evidence that staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment or used the findings to make improvements to outcomes for patients.

Following this inspection, we told the registered manager that they should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Clinics

Updated 30 March 2020