The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Dr Xavier G. Medi-Spa Clinic

25 Queens Terrace, Southampton, Hampshire, SO14 3BQ

Provided and run by:
Xavier G. Medical Aesthetix Limited

All Inspections

11 October 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on Wednesday 11 October 2017 to ask the clinic the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

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

Are services effective?

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

Are services caring?

We found that this clinic was providing caring clinics in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

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

Are services well-led?

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

Background

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 clinic was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The clinic had been previously inspected by the Care Quality Commission in 2013 under our previous methodology and was found to be compliant with the regulations at that time.

Dr Xavier G Medi-Spa Clinic offers a wide range of medical cosmetic, skin health and preventative treatments for the face, body and inner health. The clinic is led by co-director Dr Xavier Goodarzian, who is medically supported by a GMC registered doctor and is occasionally supported by an independent Nurse Prescriber There are also three clinic therapists, two reception staff and a clinic manager as well as clinic co-director Mr Martin MacKenzie who is the registered manager.

A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the clinic. 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 clinic is run.

The clinic does not treat anyone under the age of 18 and its policy is that no accompanying under-18s are allowed with clients.

The clinic is open weekdays from 9am until 7pm, apart from Wednesdays when it closes at 6pm. All other times, the clinic has an out-of-hours telephone service in place with a call-minding company who have mobile telephone access to aftercare advice with the team at any time should a client have any issues when the clinic is closed.

Seven clients provided feedback about the clinic. All replies were very positive. They stated that there was a great service, very informative with lots of advice. Clients felt welcomed and safe and treated with compassion, respect and dignity.

Our key findings were:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The clinic had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise many risks to client safety however there were areas that could be improved upon.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had received training to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The clinic proactively sought feedback from staff and clients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour.
  • Due to the building being grade two listed in a conservation area physical modifications for wheelchair access was not possible. However the majority of treatments could be performed in a ground floor treatment room. Wheelchair users could be referred to a similar clinic nearby for better access if needed. The team was trained to ascertain a client’s access requirements at the time of the telephone enquiry in order to better serve their needs.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

Ensure staff are trained in children's safeguarding to level three for doctors, level two for nurses and level one for administration staff to better support those that may enter the clinic whether a client or visitor.

7 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak with people about their experience of the service they received. This was because the day of our visit no one was receiving treatment that was regulated by us. As part of the scheduled inspection we followed up on areas of non-compliance at the same time to ensure the provider remained complaint in the essential standards of quality and safety.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff had received appropriate training in infection prevention and control, safeguarding vulnerable adults and mental capacity act.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

6 February 2013

During a routine inspection

It was not possible to speak to people who used the service as no one was available at the time of the inspection.

We reviewed the records of four people receiving treatments registered by the Care Quality Commission. We found that people had consented and been involved in decisions about their care and treatment. People were given at least a two day 'cooling off' period and received a copy of their signed consent form in accordance with best practice.

We saw that the treatment records showed that people's needs were assessed and that the treatment was delivered in line with their individual treatment plan. There were details of review consultations with the doctor at regular scheduled intervals during their period of treatment.

There were ineffective systems in place to ensure that the clinic was clean, hygienic and fit for purpose.

There was a lack of training for staff in some areas, which may result in people's needs not being fully met.

Information about how people could raise concerns was not easily accessible to people visiting the clinic. Staff told us they were aware of the complaints policy and procedures. The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints.