Ness Aesthetics Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found the clinician treated people equally and without discrimination. They complied with legal equality and human rights requirements. This was a paid for service and people were able to book appointments on a day and time to suit them. People received follow up calls following treatment and had access to speak to the clinician if they had any concerns. Feedback was requested and followed up if required. People knew how to make a complaint, and the clinician knew how to respond appropriately.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the clinician who owned the service as well as to CQC, was positive. The clinician who owned the service treated people equally and without discrimination.

The clinician who owned the service proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked to address any local health inequalities. They understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

The clinician who owned the service had processes in place to ensure they followed a person-centred approach to care and treatment. This meant people chose exactly what procedures they wanted with guidance and support from the clinician.

The clinician who owned the service understood the diverse needs of the local community and how treatment needed to be individualised and delivered in a way that met a person’s assessed needs. They had built up working relationships and communication with other professionals, so patients received person centred care in a timely and seamless way.

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

The clinician who owned the service ensured there was continuity in patients care and treatment. They had policies in place which reflected the needs of the local community and informed how they would ensure continuity of care for people. The clinician had received recognised training in providing support for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

People said they could access information in a format they understood at the time they needed it. If they had questions the clinician who owned the service was available to answer them.

The clinician was able to provide information in a range of formats to meet the communication needs of each individual.

The clinician who owned the service ensured information was accessible for people who required it in a different format such as large print. They understood the need to use information in line with the Accessible Information Standard which says people who have a disability or sensory loss should get information which they can access and understand.

People felt the clinician who owned the service listened to them. They said they were asked to provide feedback after appointments and had not needed to complain but had information on how to do this if they needed to. People said they would raise concerns directly with the service as they knew it would be listened to.

The clinician told us it was important to the to listen to the views of people they were treating to continually improve the service provided.

The clinician who owned the service had a complaints policy in place, and this was available on their website. They encouraged all feedback and used this for discussion with their peer support clinician to makes changes and improvements. They had not received any complaints or concerns.

People had no concerns about accessing the service where they could book by phone or online for an appointment at a time that suited them.

The clinician who owned the service allowed time between appointments, so people were not waiting long in the reception area. The building was accessible for disabled people. Appointments were available at a range of times during the day and in the evening.

The clinician had recently improved their working days following feedback from people who used the service which made it easier for people to book an appointment. Following a procedure people were given an out of hours number to call for advice if needed. If people had concerns about the outcomes of their treatment, they discuss this with the clinician.

People were very positive about the outcomes of their treatment and said they would use the service in the future if they needed to.

The clinician who owned the service treated people as individuals and according to their personal needs. We found no evidence of discrimination from the clinician.

The clinician who owned the service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. They had systems in place to review patient feedback. This was used to review the patient experience and address any instances of discrimination. The clinician engaged with a wide range of external professional aesthetics groups, and this supported them to think about the wider impact for discrimination.

People were aware of their treatment plans and how long it would take them to achieve their goals.

The clinician who owned the service ensured they kept case notes for each person they treated, and that people had a copy of their treatment plan which were discussed and changed as needed during treatment.

The clinician had processes in place to ensure people were aware of the commitment they needed to make for treatment to have the best possible outcome.