We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Courthouse Clinics Body Limited Wilmslow on 13 December 2017 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background Information

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Courthouse Clinics Body Limited Wilmslow provides anti-aging and aesthetics procedures. The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide the regulated activities of; Diagnostic and screening; and the treatment of disease, disorder or injury. Many of the services provided do not fall within the regulated activities for which the service is registered with CQC. For example, some of the anti-aging aesthetic procedures and laser hair removal do not fall within the regulated activities for which the location is registered.

Our key findings were:

• The provider had systems in place to provide a safe service.
• A system was in place for reporting, investigating and learning from significant events and incidents.
• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and clinical staff were trained in basic life support.
• There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety. For example, infection control practices were carried out appropriately and there were regular checks on the environment and equipment used.
• Feedback from patients about the care and treatment they received was very positive.
• Patients were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
• Patients were provided with information about their procedures and after care.
• Systems were in place to protect personal information about patients.
• An induction programme was in place for all staff and staff received induction training linked to their roles and responsibilities.
• Clinical staff were trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Staff had access to all standard operating procedures and policies.
• The service encouraged and acted on feedback from patients. Patient survey information we reviewed showed that people who used the service had given positive feedback about their experience.

• Information about services and how to complain was available.
• The service had good facilities, including disabled access. It was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership and staff structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

• There were governance systems and processes in place to ensure the quality of service provision.

Areas where the provider should make improvements;

• Review the arrangements for sharing information with patient’s GPs.
• Consider the provision of chaperone training for staff who are responsible for chaperoning as part of their roles and responsibilities.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice