We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 18 September 2018 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.

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.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by a medical practitioner for minor surgical procedures. At Modality Medical Spa the aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the treatment for minor surgery but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

The service had a registered manager since August 2013. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During the inspection we spoke with one patient and received 30 completed CQC comment cards. All feedback from patients was positive and included that patients felt comfortable, staff were friendly and explained aftercare well. From the comment cards received we were not able to tell which comments related to the service that we were inspecting and which related to the services that were out of scope of inspection.

Our key findings were:

• The service had effective systems and processes to keep patients safe. Polices were accessible to staff and well embedded. However, we found the service did not check the identity of private patients before carrying out a procedure. Following the inspection, the provider informed us they would be implementing a policy with immediate effect to confirm the identity of all private patients.
• The service monitored post-operative complications in NHS patients and collected patient feedback to monitor how effective the service was.
• From data provided, we saw patient feedback was positive and patients were likely to recommend the service.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• The lead clinician was experienced in Dermatology and minor surgery and continued to access clinical support and supervision as needed.
• Data we viewed showed patients were satisfied with the choice of appointment offered and the service was meeting its own targets for treatment times.
• The service had a clear leadership structure and staff were aware of their own roles and responsibilities.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Consider including private patients in the monitoring of post-operative complications to understand how effective services are and to make further improvements.