The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Kita Aesthetics

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Arctic House, Howard Street, Burnley, BB11 4PJ (01282) 705392

Provided and run by:
Kita Aesthetics Ltd

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kita Aesthetics on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Kita Aesthetics, you can give feedback on this service.

17 February 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall.

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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection, as part of our inspection programme on 17 February 2022 at Kita Aesthetics. The service is provided from Arctic House, Howard Street

Burnley, BB11 4PJ. This was the service’s first CQC inspection.

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 particular 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. Kita Aesthetics provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example facial fillers for skin rejuvenation, which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

Shaun Collier is the nominated individual and the registered manager for the provider Kita Aesthetics Ltd. 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.

Our key findings were:

  • The service was offered on a private, fee-paying basis only and was accessible to people who chose to use it.

  • Information for people who used the service was comprehensive and accessible directly to people’s smart phone. Information was available in paper format also for those who required it. The service website detailed the services on offer and the associated costs.

  • The provider and all other staff that undertook regulated aesthetic treatments were registered nurses. The provider and staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.

  • The provider was in the process of reviewing and organising the staff recruitment records to ensure they complied with the regulations.

  • There were effective systems and processes to assess the risk of, prevent, detect and control the spread of infection. To mitigate the potential risks from COVID-19 transmission the provider installed an automated body temperature scanner at the main entrance to the service. Any person entering the location with a raised body temperature were politely asked to leave and re-schedule their appointment.

  • The provider monitored feedback from people who used their service. Evidence was available which showed people commented positively about the service they received. Compliments referred to the quality of their care and treatment received and the protections in place to minimise the risks of COVID-19 transmission.

  • Procedures were safely managed and a system that offered post treatment support to people was in place, should this be required. We discussed with the provider strengthening written information to demonstrate the decision making regarding waiving the cooling off period for the minor surgical procedure thread lift for occasions when this was requested.

  • The electronic client record system comprehensively recorded client information including consent to treatment and photography. Evidence of verbal consent at the time of treatment was also recorded.

  • Following our inspection visit the provider increased the number of notices displayed to advise people on the use of closed circuit television (CCTV) at the service. Client information records were also updated to record and evidence people’s consent to the use of this.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to improve the organisation and content of staff employment records so that they fully reflect the regulations.

  • Improve the written documentation to demonstrate decision making when the good practice recommendation for a cooling off period is refused by those clients requesting thread lifts.

  • Obtain a spill kit to support infection prevention and control procedures.

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