Light Touch Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed all quality statements for this key question to determine if the provision of services were safe. There had been improvements in the operation of safety systems since the previous inspection. There was a positive learning culture and systems designed to keep patients safe. The provider’s systems for safeguarding concerns, the management of risks, the environment, staffing levels, infection prevention and control, and the management of medicines were effective. The improvements made meant that requirements relating to Regulation 12, safe care and treatment were now being met.

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.

Patient feedback collected for this assessment had no specific views or concerns regarding the learning culture at the service. The provider advised they would, if ever required contact patients who were affected by an incident to offer a verbal or written apology and an explanation.

There was a proactive approach to patient safety and learning. This included reflection, learning and improvements made following the December 2022 inspection. Staff were encouraged to report all incidents for shared learning opportunities. There was a proactive learning culture with patient safety as a priority. The clinic manager worked alongside the founder and clinical lead, both were aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The service had effective processes to record and action significant events. There were processes in place to enable learning to be shared with relevant staff to reduce the risk of repeat issues. This included learning from developments within the wider aesthetic sector. There was also an effective system for acting on patient safety and medicine alerts.

Patient feedback collected for this assessment had no specific views or concerns regarding movement between different services. If required, the provider would signpost patients to other services.

Staff told us there were systems in place which ensured safety and continuity of care for patients. The clinician advised they had made appropriate and timely referrals and signposted patients to alternative services on presentation of clinical symptoms in line with protocols and up-to-date evidence-based guidance.

We did not receive any feedback from partners surrounding systems and pathways as part of this assessment.

Patient correspondence was managed via a cloud-based, password protected, electronic system to ensure consistency and security of clinical record keeping. From a selection of patient records reviewed, we saw that patient consultations contained appropriate information and demonstrated that care and treatment was being delivered in a safe way. The service had a system in place to retain medical records in line with Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) guidance in the event they ceased trading. Following significant changes within the aesthetic sector, the service had processes to support patients from an alternative provider to continue with their treatment at the Light Touch Clinic.

Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding as to how to identify and raise safeguarding concerns. All staff had received training in the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults at an appropriate level to support their role.

The service had processes to safeguard patients from abuse. This included a safeguarding policy which provided appropriate guidance for staff, contact details for the local council’s safeguarding team, appropriate processes to support the use of chaperones and there were processes to confirm patients were age 18 years or over. The service had a policy to ensure staff carried out identification checks if a patient appeared to be under the age of 18 years. No children were treated by the service.

Patient feedback collected for this assessment had no specific views or concerns about their involvement in risk. However, we saw patient survey results which indicated all patients had received support and aftercare advice post treatment which included how to manage any potential risks, side effects and how to optimise outcomes.

Staff understood their role in managing risks within the service, this included health and safety risks, security risks and potential post treatment risks to patients. This included their responsibilities to manage emergencies. The clinician also spoke of the importance of including patients in all decisions about their treatment.

We found that appropriate emergency equipment and medicines were kept at the service and staff were aware of how to find these. This included the addition of oxygen which was an improvement introduced following the December 2022 inspection. We found that systems for checking emergency equipment, and the expiry dates of medicines were effective.

Staff were clear about their role and responsibilities in relation to environmental safety and who was responsible for oversight of specific areas, such as health and safety, infection prevention and control, and fire safety. Staff we spoke with told us they were trained in emergency procedures and were able to discuss the actions they would take if an emergency situation arose.

The service was provided from self-contained premises located over 4 floors which were leased by the provider. All areas of the building had been renovated and refurbished to a high medical grade specification. Only the ground and the first floor of the premises were accessed by patients. The premises include a suite of consultation, treatment and administration rooms, a reception and waiting area. The reception area overlooked the waiting area, allowing for clear monitoring of people sat there. Access to the premises at street level, was available to patients with limited mobility.

There were processes in place to monitor the safety and maintenance of the premises, facilities and equipment. Internal and external risk assessments had been completed as required, and action plans developed to address any identified risks. There were also processes to ensure equipment was maintained, serviced and calibrated. Environmental risk assessments had been completed.

Patient feedback collected for this assessment had no specific views or concerns about staffing. However, we saw patient survey results indicated high levels of satisfaction and a team commitment to patient-centred care.

Staff and leaders told us there were enough staff to keep people safe. Staff also they were in receipt of effective support, supervision, and development to deliver safe care.

Patient feedback collected for this assessment reflected no concerns about infection prevention control.

Staff told us that they had received training in infection, prevention and control and had access to a designated lead member of staff who had additional training. Staff reported they had no concerns in relation to infection prevention and control.

Appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were met. The premises were visually clean on the assessment day. We observed there were effective systems to manage infection prevention and control within the service. This included cleaning and monitoring schedules were in place and all cleaning was carried out by staff employed by the service. There were sufficient stocks of personal protective equipment, including masks, aprons and gloves, available to staff. There were arrangements in place for managing clinical waste and sharps bins were appropriately managed.

Auditing of infection prevention processes had been undertaken and staff had received training in infection prevention and control. The provider utilised an external supplier to support their implementation and monitoring of infection control processes. The service had undertaken an infection control audit, the most recent from October 2024, which found effective processes were in place.

Patient feedback collected for this assessment had no specific views or concerns about medicines optimisation.

Staff explained the systems and processes used to manage medicines safely and effectively. They were supported by training and policies. Staff told us they received regular training on medicines management, and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff explained how they stored medical gases, such as oxygen, safely and completed required safety risk assessments.

We saw medicines were stored securely in a locked cupboard. Botox (Botulinum toxin is the medicine used for treatment of excessive sweating and teeth grinding) was the only medicine held by the service which required refrigeration. Botox supplies were stored in a pharmaceutical refrigerator which was monitored to ensure it maintained the correct temperature range for safe storage. Stock levels and expiry dates for emergency medicines were regularly monitored and emergency oxygen was stored safely.

Cold chain processes were observed. The recording of refrigerator temperatures were well documented via an electronic system. Staff were knowledgeable regarding the processes and actions to take should there be any concerns with medicines optimisation, including if the cold chain became compromised and having a second pharmaceutical refrigerator should one fall out of safe temperature range for storing medicines.