Liverpool Skin 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 assessed 6 out of the 7 quality statements from this key question. Our rating for this key question has improved to good. We found that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. However, we were not provided with evidence of how feedback provided by people were consistently used to make service improvements.

This service scored 68 (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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients told us their health and care needs were understood and they were actively involved in planning care that met their needs.

Staff told us that patient surgeries and follow up appointments are booked at times that are suited for the patients.

There were no patients on site during inspection. We were shown plans of care of how the service communicated with patients to meet their individual needs.

Patients told us that their care and support was co-ordinated, and everyone worked well together within the team and with them.

Staff told us that the service delivered and co-ordinated services which considered the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care. Staff told us that the service was a fee-paying service and did not carry out NHS funded procedures.

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

Aftercare instructions to patient include how to contact the service during the out of hours period and in an emergency to attend the local accident and emergency service. Examples had been provided whereby the clinician was contacted in the out of hours period and advice provided. If a patient attended another health provider, the service provided the patient with contact details of the hair surgeon, summary of the procedure and after care instructions should the patients choose to seek advice from another health care provider.

People were provided with clear and transparent information which included contracts and financial charges before consent.

Clinic materials were written in a clear to understand manner however, it was only available in English. Staff told us that the clinic staff could professionally speak four languages, however if needed, a translation service would be used.

Service had an Information Governance Policy with reference to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other relevant legislation. Service had a translation policy which included provisions to be made for persons with sensory impairments.

People told us they had opportunity throughout their patient journey to raise concerns and provide feedback.

Clinic management told us they had not received a complaint about their services in the past 2 years. They however, encouraged patients to provide feedback of their treatment experience on internet platforms. We were told that patient feedback and concerns were reviewed.

Service provided an email address and link to an internet review platform for patients to provide feedback and share concerns with the practice. The service could not provide us with an example of an action plan or improvement that resulted from this process.

People did not disclose to us if they were from a protected characteristic group, but they told us they had not experienced any difficulty in contacting the service throughout their patient journey.

Clinical leaders told us that the service did not have an exclusion criterion based on Equality and Diversity characteristics. However, they had not had any patients with a Learning Disability present to the clinic.

Any patient could self-refer through the service’s website or general contact number. Treatment rooms and waiting rooms were easily accessible. The service had a ramp if required for the two steps leading to the washroom.

People who provided feedback were positive about the outcome of their experience and treatment. We did not get any negative feedback from people who corresponded with us about the service.

The hair surgeon gave us examples of care and treatment provided for patients with consideration given to their psychosocial wellbeing. Post procedure check-ins with the patients were undertaken to assess patients’ wellbeing and satisfaction with the procedure. We were given examples where the service had obtained feedback from patients who described the treatment as improving their quality of life and self-esteem.

The service monitored post-treatment success rates for patients through before and after pictures. The service could evidence positive outcomes for patients through written and pictorial evidence. Most patients declined follow up appointments 12 months after a procedure with the main reason being they were satisfied with the result.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.