The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Vinci Hair Centre Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

130 Harley Street, London, W1G 7JU (020) 7486 2331

Provided and run by:
Vinci Hair Centre Ltd

All Inspections

14 April 2022 and 20 April 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location was 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. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them 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.
  • 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.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of 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.
  • Leaders ran services well 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:

  • A defibrillator (AED) in the large theatre had not been serviced in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and there was not a system of recorded checks in place for the AED.
  • An emergency medicines kit had out of date medicines and there was no system to record checks on emergency medicines.
  • The service logged risks to the service on a risk log. However, dates risks were added to the risk log were not recorded. The service did not have a system of removing closed risks from the risk log.
  • The service did not have an identified safeguarding lead that all staff were aware of.
  • The service did not have a service level agreement in place with a provider of acute emergency services in the event of a deteriorating patient at the centre.
  • The service did not have a record of when disposable electrical equipment, that was not subject to electrical safety testing, should be replaced.

29 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We haven't been able to speak to people using the service because there were no patients available to talk to as they were undergoing all day treatments. We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by reviewing questionnaires and comments and the complaints log. People who use the service told us that staff were 'respectful' and 'pleasant'. They were provided with information about the services on offer. Consultations took place in private rooms and translation services were available if needed.

People who had used the service told us that they were given information about their care and treatment before they underwent procedures. They said that staff were "very professional", "welcoming" and "very attentive".

Staff were trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. There was a policy and procedure in place for how to report any concerns, including to the local authority.

When staff started at the service they received an induction. Staff undertook mandatory training on an annual basis, including what to do in a medical emergency. There was a procedure in place for them to undergo annual appraisals where their performance would be discussed and targets set for the coming year.

Staff at the service monitored the clinical outcomes of the treatment of patients. Regular patient feedback questionnaires were completed. People using the service told us that they would be happy to raise any concerns with staff if they had any.

8 September 2011

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak to people who use services on this occasion. However we observed patients being treated with respect by staff. Evidence from the clinic's quality assurance audits carried out between September 2010 to September 2011 and feedback from patients showed that people were happy with the treatment received and the after care and support provided. People who use services were very positive about the service provided to them, they are fully involved in their treatment and all areas of risk and choices available to them were discussed at the consultation.