So Aesthetics

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Peoples’ needs were assessed, and care and treatment were delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance supported by clear pathways and tools. Staff took time to listen to people and ensure they were involved in all aspects of their treatment. Patients gave positive feedback about the way staff treated people. Where appropriate patients gave consent for any treatment required.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People said they were confident their individual needs had been appropriately assessed and were understood. These were recorded in their notes.

Staff were trained in how to assess people's needs. Staff recorded people’s communication preferences in their records to ensure people had the information they required in a way they could understand. People could be accompanied by a friend or relative for moral support but interpreting services would be used for communication with the patient if English was not their first language.

The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure peoples’ immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed. People’s care needs were reviewed at each appointment. We saw no evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions. Staff discussed people's reasons for requesting the treatment to ensure this was being given for medical reasons only.

People said they were given information and guidance about their options for treatment and the risks and benefits of these.

Staff told us leaders kept them up to date when changes were made to national guidance or medicines.

Leaders had systems and processes in place to ensure updates to national guidance was shared with staff in a timely way through regular clinical meetings and daily updates.

People said staff worked well together and coordinated the service they received. Referrals on to other services such as the menopause nurse or the GP were made appropriately.

Staff had regular meetings and away days with leaders to ensure they worked well together. Referrals regarding histopathology (study of tissues under a microscope to look for disease) following mole removal were discussed with the patient and made promptly.

We did not receive any feedback from partners, but the provider showed us evidence of the people and organisations they worked with. The score for this quality statement is based on this evidence.

Leaders ensured teams and services worked well together. They had policies in place which clearly set out the processes to follow for making referrals and keeping people informed of their continuing health care needs.

People said they were given guidance about living healthier lives. This included wound care for sites where a surgical removal had taken place.

Staff and leaders understood the importance of giving people additional guidance alongside their procedure to ensure they would get the best possible outcome from the treatment.

Leaders had policies and procedures in place to ensure people had all the information they needed in relation to the medical procedure they received.

People said the team at the practice worked well together to ensure they received good outcomes.

Leaders and staff used effective approaches to monitor people’s care, treatment, and outcomes. They ensured all people receiving a medical procedure for hay fever, bruxism (teeth grinding), hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating), migraine, skin lesions and injections in the knee were followed up within 48 hours so any concerns could be addressed.

Leaders had policies and procedures in place to monitor people’s outcomes. These were audited and used to improve the service provided. For example, people’s pain levels were measured both before and after a knee injection to measure the benefits and outcomes for each individual.

People confirmed treatment was discussed with them before each procedure and could ask questions as they needed to. People completed a consent form before treatment began.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood how to ensure someone was able to give informed consent for treatment. Staff did not provide treatment if they found someone did not fully understand the treatment being offered and would refer the person to their GP. Staff said the consent form was sent out before an appointment, so people had time to read it. They asked people to read it again on arrival so they could confirm they were providing informed consent.

Leaders had put together a detailed consent form which covered the treatment itself and all potential side effects. This had been improved following feedback from a patient who said they had not been aware of a particular side effect of the treatment they received. The consent form was revisited at every appointment and a copy sent to each person receiving treatment. The service had a chaperone policy in place which meant people could ask for a trained person to be in the room with them while a procedure took place. The service did not provide treatment to people under the age of 18 under any circumstances.