Liverpool Skin Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We assessed all 5 quality statements for this key question. This key question was unrated on our last inspection. Our rating for this key question has been rated as good. We found the service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and had their dignity and privacy respected. People’s wishes and choices were understood and respected and they described the service and staff who work there as kind, considerate and empathic. However, we were not provided with evidence of workforce wellbeing support.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us staff were “polite” and “courteous” throughout their patient journey with the service, and they had no concerns about the care and treatment offered.

Staff told us that each patient was treated with compassion and dignity. Patients were given a courtesy call the morning of their procedure to ensure they had eaten and provided further instruction on suitable clothing to wear to the clinic for their procedure. We were given an example of routine practice which involved staff escorting patients to their cars, helping them get properly positioned to prevent injury to the transplanted area.

No concerns were raised by a partner organisation who worked with the service.

No patients were at the service whilst we were onsite. However, we observed accolades and letters of thanks from patients for the service.

Patients told us that the staff provided them with information and reassurance throughout their procedure which were lengthy. They told us staff addressed their concerns throughout their patient journey.

Staff told us they treated people as individuals, considering any relevant protected equality characteristics. The hair surgeon told us that they recognised each patient had different needs when seeking the procedure. Therefore, each patient’s plan was tailored to meet their specific needs. Patients with protected characteristics were provided with care specific to their concerns and needs while respecting their privacy.

They were no patients on site during inspection

However, clinic staff described that treatments were provided on a one-to-one basis. They also gave us examples of caring for patients from protected equality characteristic groups with dignity and respect.

Patient charts included documentation from the hair surgeon to sign in and sign out indicating that they were present for each procedure. The service had an Equality Act policy which was past the date of review. All staff had completed mandatory equality and diversity e-learning training.

Patients spoke positively of the treatment they received from the service and the support it provided in helping them make their choice of treatment.

Staff told us that their patients could be accompanied to their appointments by a friend or relative but could not elaborate on how they would accommodate this process.

Service did not have a chaperone policy at the time of our inspection.

People told us that the service was “just a phone call away” if they had concerns or questions regarding their treatment throughout their patient journey.

Staff told us they were alert to people’s needs and took the time to observe, communicate and engage with people in discussions about their immediate needs. They found out how to respond in the most appropriate way to respect their wishes, needs and preferences. Staff told us that patients were sent home with equipment to protect the transplanted areas and part of the next day follow up was to assist them in washing their hair. This was done to prevent unintentional injury to the surgical site.

Staff gave us examples of how the service, in instances of unintentional injury, would immediately have a plan, in collaboration with the patient, to repair the damaged area. Advise was also given to the patient to be seen by other health providers if required.

They were no patients on site during our visit, however the service described their process during treatment as there was always a clinic staff with the patient during treatment. Post treatment, patients were given follow up appointments and had access to the clinic’s WhatsApp line to contact whenever they needed it.

Clinic leader told us that staff check-ins were had often and informally.

We did not see or were provided with evidence of workforce wellbeing support.