NR Aesthetics and Skin Ltd Also known as NR Aesthetics & Skin

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. People experienced a person-centred approach when using the service. The clinician ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment. This meant people chose exactly what procedures they wanted to suit them. The clinician recorded people’s preferences and choices in their records so these could be used to ensure care was person centred. The clinician told us that tailoring treatments to meet the individual needs, preferences and goals was imperative to ensure service user expectations were met and that they were satisfied with the service provided. The clinician endeavoured to ensure each service user was given an adequate amount of time during their appointment to ensure they received a thorough holistic assessment and an appropriate plan was formulated. People were given the opportunity to ask questions and there was a cooling off period following the consultation in line with guidance for prescription only medicines.

The clinician 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 service users received person centred care in a seamless way. Referrals to other services were completed in a timely manner. The clinician ensured there was continuity of care by providing consistent and coordinated services throughout the service user's aesthetic journey. Arrangements had been made that in the event of an emergency whereby the clinician was unable to provide the service, the clinic director of another aesthetic provider would follow up with service users thereby limiting the involvement of others and maintaining continuity of care.

People said they were fully informed about the treatment they would be receiving and were given aftercare information following any procedure. People felt the clinician was very knowledgeable about the treatments provided and was available to answer any questions they had. People were able to access information via the service website, social media, email and through the booking system. The clinician told us that most queries were answered within 48 hours where possible. In addition, a monthly newsletter with information was available for all patients. The clinician strived to provide clear information for service users regarding their treatment plan, pricing, potential risks, and the expected benefits and outcomes. Written information was provided to service users in the clinic and an email summary was sent following the consultation which detailed what was discussed. The clinician was able to provide information in a range of formats to meet the communication needs of each individual as needed. Interpretation services had not been required but were available via ‘Language Line’ translation services.

All feedback CQC received about the service was positive and people felt listened to. The clinician encouraged service users to share feedback about the care, treatment and support they received. We saw evidence of feedback questionnaires and a feedback audit where any lessons learned were identified. We saw a complaints process was in place however the service had not received any complaints since registering with CQC.

Feedback received by the CQC and the provider was positive about access to the service. People could book by phone or online for an appointment at a time that suited them. Appointments were available 48 hours in advance and the clinician explained this period allowed them time to assess the consultation notes thoroughly prior to the service user coming into the clinic. The online booking system enabled service users to reschedule their appointments as needed. The service had terms and conditions in place regarding appointments to facilitate equitable access for service users. The clinician explained that appointment times were constantly assessed and changed to ensure service user needs were met. For example, the service was open later on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to accommodate service users who require appointments after work; and periodically, the service was open on weekends according to demand. Following a procedure, people were given the mobile telephone number of the clinician to call for advice if needed. We saw evidence of an action plan for improving disabled access to the service which included the development of a clear referral pathway for people who require wheelchair access that the clinic cannot currently accommodate; identifying and establishing partnerships with nearby clinics or facilities that can provide the necessary accessible services; and ensuring that accessibility remains a priority in any future clinic expansions or renovations.

Systems were in place to review patient feedback and complaints to appraise the service user experience. People were very positive about their experience using the service and the outcomes of their treatment. If people did have any concerns about the outcomes of their treatment, they would be invited back to the clinic for a further consultation. The clinician treated people as individuals and 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. We found no evidence of discrimination from the clinician.

People were aware of their treatment plans and how long it would take them to achieve their goals. The clinician ensured they kept consultation notes for each person they treated, and treatment plans were discussed with service users and modified as needed. 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.