DHI International UK Limited is operated by DHI International UK Limited. The service provides hair transplant procedures under local anaesthetic for self-referring and private patients. The clinic has two hair transplant clinical rooms, a hair wash room and two consulting rooms.

The service provides hair transplant procedure for adults only.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced part of the inspection on 4 December 2018.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this clinic was hair transplant procedure under local anaesthetic.

Services we rate

We rated it as Good overall.

• There were systems in place to keep people safe. Mandatory training and safeguarding training for adults had been completed by all staff.

• Equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately, and there were safeguards in place to protect people from the risks of infection.

• Staff received training to undertake hair transplant procedures safely and there were opportunities for further staff development.

• Staff worked in line with appropriate guidance. Consent processes were appropriate and staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and associated legislation.

• Staff were caring and the privacy and dignity of patients was respected. Feedback from patients was consistently positive.

• Services were planned and delivered in order that they met the needs of patients. Adaptations to the environment had been considered and put in place, to ensure the clinical setting was safe for patients.

• The service managed staffing effectively. Staff with the right skills and experience were allocated appropriately, ensuring patients were safe and that their care needs were met.

• When things went wrong, lessons were learnt and changes were made to reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring again in the future.

• Risks associated with the delivery of services had been considered and were acted upon appropriately.

• Staff described a culture of openness and transparency. The leadership team were visible, approachable and responsive.

Dr Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)

Dear Provider

During our last inspection on 31st July 2014 we found that the provider did not have adequate arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies and appropriate recruitment procedures were not in place.

At this inspection we found arrangements were in place to deal with emergencies and appropriate recruitment checks had been carried out for all staff. However, non-clinical staff had not received Basis Life Support training from a recognised trainer.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

We did not speak to people who use the service as part of this inspection.

We spoke with people using the service and looked at recent patient comments and patient satisfaction survey report. People using the service described it as “outstanding” and “professional, friendly, helpful”. They reported that they were treated with respect and were given information about their care and treatment. They praised the quality of staff who treated them.

People who use the services told us they were involved in decisions about their treatment, care and support and that their privacy and dignity was respected. Relatives commented on how good the care was. People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. Information leaflets and patients' guides are available and given to people to enable them make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Individual records are kept for each patient which shows that patients experience safe and appropriate care.

People commented that they received quality care, treatment and support from friendly and competent staff and they felt safe receiving treatment. These comments were supported by the documented entries in the comment book kept at the clinic, we saw various compliments written in the book by people saying how excellent their treatment and care was and felt that their privacy and dignity were maintained. People who use the service told us that they were in personal contact with the staff and clinic manager frequently to identify that they were satisfied with the service and staff delivering it.

It was not possible for us to speak to patients during our visit. We saw through patient satisfaction survey results that people who use services are satisfied with the staff and feel that the staff can answer their questions and provide them with good quality care.

We carried out our inspection visits of 24 and 31 July 2014 as part of our planned scheduled inspection but also to follow up non-compliance with the regulations we identified at our previous inspection on 6 September 2012. In particular, the provider was not meeting the standards regarding requirements relating to workers. The provider wrote to us to tell us of the action taken to address this non-compliance and ensure people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

At our latest inspections we found that people’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected and their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. Patients we spoke with and the mostly positive evaluations we saw in patients’ records confirmed this. We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. People told us that they felt their care and treatment met their needs and they were satisfied with the service provided. They felt safe in the care of their doctor and nurse and had full trust in their skills and knowledge. However, we found that the provider was not meeting the standards for care and welfare of people who used the service. People were not fully protected from the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment because the arrangements for dealing with foreseeable emergencies were insufficient and did not adequately reflect published guidance.

We found the provider was still not meeting the regulations regarding requirements relating to workers. The provider could not demonstrate that effective recruitment procedures were in place. No documentation was available of recruitment and selection policies and procedures, and information was not always available to show that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.