The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Derby Skin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Ground Floor Suite, 1-2 Vernon Street, Derby, Derbyshire, DE1 1FR 07712 100110

Provided and run by:
Mr Satish Chawdhary and Mrs Satyewanti Rani Chawdhary

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

10 July 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This service is rated as Good overall.

Derby Skin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic was previously inspected on 7 November 2022 when it was rated good overall and in all key questions except for safe which was rated requires improvement. This inspection was to follow up on the actions taken by the provider to act on concerns identified at our previous inspection.

The key question safe is rated as Good following our inspection on 10 July 2023.

We carried out an announced, focused inspection on 10 July 2023 at Derby Skin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic to follow up on a breach of regulation for providing safe care and treatment and 3 best practice recommendations. We found that improvements had been made to meet the relevant requirements.

This service is registered with the CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner for minor surgical procedures. At Derby Skin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic the aesthetic cosmetic treatments, including skin laser treatments, that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the treatment for clients requiring minor surgical procedures but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

One of the partners is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. 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.

Our key findings were:

  • Recruitment policies had been updated to include the need to explain gaps in employment histories however it had not been fully embedded into practice.
  • There were systems in place to manage infection prevention and control.
  • Staff had completed, or were booked onto, essential training as identified by the provider.
  • A fire risk assessment had been arranged for 18 July 2023.
  • Appropriate emergency equipment and medicines were available within the service.
  • Patients’ records were stored securely.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Embed into practice guidance contained in their updated recruitment and staff health assessment policies.
  • Review the fire risk assessment planned for 18 July 2023 and develop an action plan to address any potential risks.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

7 November 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires improvement

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Derby Skin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic as part of our inspection programme. The clinic was previously inspected on 31 January 2018 however, the service was not rated.

This service is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner for minor surgical procedures. At Derby Skin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic the aesthetic cosmetic treatments, including skin laser treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the treatment for clients requiring minor surgical procedures but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

One of the partners is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. 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.

As part of our inspection, we asked clients to share feedback with the CQC through our website. We received 10 comments from clients who had used the service. All 10 comments were positive. Clients told us that staff were very knowledgeable, professional, friendly and provided an excellent service. They told us that there was timely access to appointments and staff put them at their ease.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had processes in place to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse. However, risk assessments or audits had not always been completed, in particular infection prevention, fire safety, legionella and lack of emergency equipment and medicines. Processes to obtain explanations of gaps in staff employment histories were not in place.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat clients and meet their needs.
  • Clients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Clinicians maintained the necessary skills and competence to support clients’ needs.
  • Staff dealt with clients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Clients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the service was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

We found the following outstanding practice:

  • In June 2022, the provider had provided 3 Indian footballers who were blind and visiting the UK, a review of their vision to determine if surgical intervention could help to improve their sight. This was provided free of charge by the provider. The surgeon provided the footballers with a report to take back to India to support them to seek treatment that could potentially improve their sight.

At our previous inspection on 31 January 2018, we made a best practice recommendation that the provider should consider holding emergency equipment such as a defibrillator and oxygen in the premises or making a formal risk assessment to mitigate potential risks. At this inspection, we found that a risk assessment had been completed in 2019 following our inspection however, it did not adequately mitigate potential risks to clients.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Update the staff recruitment policy to include the need to obtain written explanations of gaps in employment history and embed it into practice.
  • Review the storage of client hand-written records to improve the security of the records and protect them from damage or fire.
  • Monitor that staff attend and complete essential training, as identified and booked by the provider, for fire safety, basic life support and infection control and prevention.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

31 January 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 31 January 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Notable practice;

The provider ensured that all patients had access to their follow-up service that was available at any time of the day or night immediately following a procedure for a period of 24 hours. This enabled patients to feel assured of immediate attention in the unlikely event of a complication following treatment, or if they felt concerned about something.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The service provides medical treatments such as hair removal, photo rejuvenation, radio frequency skin tightening and skin resurfacing. Minor surgical treatments include removal of skin lesions, cysts, and cosmetic procedures for eyelids.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner for minor surgical procedures. At Derby Skin Laser and Cosmetic clinic the aesthetic cosmetic treatments, including skin laser treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore we were only able to inspect the treatment for patients/clients requiring minor surgical procedures but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

The female partner is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. 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.

16 people provided feedback about the service. All 16 patients were overwhelmingly positive about the service they had received. They told us that the staff were professional, polite, friendly, respectful and very thorough. Many patients said how pleased they were with the results of their treatment.

Our key findings were:

  • The provider put their patients first before financial gain. They would not provide treatment where they felt it was not in the patient’s best interest.
  • There was information available regarding treatments that were available.
  • The clinicians made a thorough initial assessment, including discussing the patients’ relevant clinical history, prior to discussing treatment options available.
  • Benefits and drawbacks of treatment options were discussed to assist patients in making decisions about their care and treatment.
  • Written consent was obtained prior to the commencement of each treatment session.
  • The treatment room for surgical procedures was maintained as a sterile environment similar to an operating theatre, where additional cleanliness and entry rules were observed and special footwear for use in sterile environments were used.
  • The male partner was a Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon at an NHS hospital and had received appropriate safeguarding training.
  • There were limited amounts of medicines used by the service. These were mainly local anaesthetics, which were stored and checked appropriately.
  • Sterile equipment was a mix of single use items and some which required sterilisation after use. The provider had an agreement with a local hospital for sterilisation of instruments. The packages we checked at inspection were all in date.
  • Receptionists had received an induction when first recruited to the role and were aware of policies and procedures used in the clinic.
  • Receptionists had not received a DBS check and there was no risk assessment made to mitigate against any risk. However, we were told that patients/clients rarely requested a chaperone.
  • There were emergency medicines for use in case of anaphylactic reaction stored at the clinic which were accessible, however, there was no oxygen or defibrillator for use in an emergency and no risk assessment to justify this decision.
  • Receptionists received an annual appraisal, and one clinican had received an appraisal through their NHS work, however, the clinican providing the majority of the treatments had not received an appraisal to check that competency had been maintained.

There was an area where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Consider holding emergency equipment such as a debibrillator and oxygen in the premises, or making a formal risk assessment to mitigate this risk.