The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

CC Kat Aesthetics

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

20 Calthorpe Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 1RP (0121) 456 7930

Provided and run by:
CC Kat Aesthetics Limited

All Inspections

27 September 2023

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service-controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment and managed pain relief well. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. The service had expanded access times.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions.
  • Staff understood the emotional impact of cosmetic surgery and worked with patients to manage expectations and support positive body image and mental health.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills through an extensive programme of engagement. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, applied them in their work, and used provider standards to challenge the status quo. Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care and creating a working environment that promoted innovation and development. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.
  • The service engaged meaningfully with patients and the wider cosmetic surgery community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services through research and exploration of new evidence-based practice.

However:

  • There was room for more consistency in the use of wipeable furniture in some areas to promote better infection control.

At our last inspection of the service, we found a breach of Regulation 12 under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This reflected a need for improved medicines management processes and better governance arrangements. At this inspection we found significant and sustained improvements along with areas of innovative practice.

04 November 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected the cosmetic surgery service provided by C C Kat Aesthetics Limited because

we received information giving us concerns about the safety and quality of the services.

We reviewed the service against the key questions of safe and well led. We did not inspect the service against the key questions of effective, caring or responsive during this inspection as our concerns did not relate to these key questions.

Our rating of C C Kat Aesthetics stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • The service did not always ensure medicines were safely stored and in date. Staff did not always use equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. Staff did not always manage clinical waste well. The service did not always sufficiently monitor patient outcomes to ensure they could identify and mitigate concerns in a timely way.
  • The governance arrangements for the service were not always robust. The service had not addressed all concerns we had raised at our last inspection. The service’s risk register did not include all the main risks to the service.

However:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service learned lessons from incidents. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Leaders supported staff to develop their skills. The service had reliable information systems. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

28 June and 30 July 2019

During a routine inspection

CC Kat Aesthetics is operated by CC Kat Aesthetics Ltd. Facilities include a theatre room, a recovery room with three beds, a treatment room and six consultation room. The service has no overnight beds.

The service provides cosmetic surgery, the focus at this location is consultations and minor surgery. Any major surgery that is required is performed at one of two local hospitals.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 28 June 2019. Following the first inspection we raised some concerns with the provider. We also conducted an announced inspection of the service on 30 July 2019 so that we could observe surgery taking place and review the improvements that had been made. Following the second inspection we also raised some concerns with the provider which they submitted information on how they had reduced these risks.

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.

Services we rate

We rated it as Requires improvement overall.

We found areas of requires improvement in relation to this service:

  • At the time of our first inspection the service used a table top steriliser, according to government legislation this was not suitable for surgical procedures. We raised this with the service and they put appropriate measures in place to safely sterilise equipment.

  • The service did not have effective checks of equipment in place at the time of our inspection.

  • Staff had a lack of understanding about specific risks to patients such as venous thromboembolisms and sepsis. During the first inspection we found that patients were not being monitored appropriately for at risk of deterioration following surgery.

  • During the inspection we found that the service did not have appropriate medicines in place to manage potential complications arising from the procedures. There were no guidelines on when to prescribe antibiotics. However, following the inspection we raised these areas of concern with the provider and they addressed all these issues.

  • At the time of our inspection staff did not monitor the effectiveness of care and treatment.

  • Leaders did not have all the skills and abilities to run the service.

  • The service did not operate effective governance processes.

  • Leaders and teams did not identify and escalate relevant risks and issues.

  • The service did not collect data to improve the service.

  • No staff survey was in place at the time of our inspection and the patient feedback forms were identified as an area for improvement.

However, we also found areas of good practice in relation to the service:

  • The service controlled infection risk well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. The service had made improvements to ensure staff were competent for their roles. worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with one requirement notice that affected the service. Details are at the end of the report

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals Midlands Area