The Medika Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

The provider carried out a comprehensive assessment of people’s needs to confirm treatment, ensure that procedures would meet their needs and that consent processes were robust.

Leaders kept themselves informed and up to date with best practice, and completed their own research and studies, to monitor outcomes in relation to aesthetic medicine.

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive about the processes in place to assess their need, they felt listened to and that assessments were thorough.

Leaders and staff described action taken including providing sufficient time, so that people could provide the information required to ensure the treatments would meet their needs and expectations.

Standard templates were used to assess needs to ensure all important points were covered.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and good practice standards.

The provider demonstrated that they attended aesthetic industry best practice conferences and reviewed industry publications in order to ensure all procedures met industry best practice.

The provider detailed information about the possible aesthetic effects of each procedure, including when treatment needed to be repeated to have a desired effect.

The service was a small team of four who worked well together, and each staff member was aware of how to access assessment information about people who used the service. The provider confirmed the service did not refer people to other services, however, information was provided to people who used services which they could share.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Information available to people who used the service identified how the products and procedures provided could enhance a sense of well-being. The provider processes, including initial assessments and follow-up information, ensured people understood that procedures were not a treatment for long term or acute conditions.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent. The provider took steps to audit and monitor feedback from people in relation to outcomes and shared and compared this information with peers in the aesthetic health industry.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider conducted a comprehensive assessment of people’s needs to confirm appropriate treatment and procedures were agreed. People were also provided with all the information necessary to make an informed consent about their care. The booking policy also included a cooling-off period to allow people sufficient time to consider their decisions. The provider did not offer a service to people under 18 years old.