East Riding Aesthetics

This service is rated as Good overall.This is the first inspection since registration with the CQC.

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

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 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. East Riding Aesthetics Limited provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services. The service had one clinician who is the registered individual provider. The registered individual provider is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered people’. 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.

East Riding Aesthetics was registered in respect of the provision of treatment of disease, disorder or injury and was in the process of registering for surgical procedures. Therefore, we were only able to inspect treatments relating to medical conditions, these were Botox for excessive sweating, weight and menopause management. The clinic offered other services such as Botox for aesthetic reasons, these services are exempt from regulation.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at East Riding Aesthetics Limited as part of our inspection programme. At the time of the inspection there were no patients attending or receiving regulated services due to COVID -19 and we were unable to ask them about the service. However, we received some comments from patients online.

Our key findings were:

• The service provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
• Risk assessments had been completed to assure the provider of the safety of the premises.
• The clinician received appropriate training to carry out their roles.
• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording incidents.
• The clinician maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients.
• The clinician was up to date with current guidelines.
• The clinician was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
• The clinic made referrals to other relevant services in a timely manner.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review and develop the system for completing clinical audit.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care