The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Medical Diagnosis Ltd

Central Business Centre, Unit 12, Great Central Way, London, NW10 0UR

Provided and run by:
Medical Diagnosis Limited

All Inspections

27 September 2022

During a routine inspection

  • The service had enough staff to provide the right level of service. Staff had training in key skills and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risks well. Staff assessed risks, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care in the collection of taking patient’s samples and specimens. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and fulfilled contract obligations with clinics. They supported patients to make decisions about their care and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers. It was easy for people to give feedback on the service.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and 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. The service were committed to improving services continually.

18 February 2022

During a routine inspection

We did not rate this service. We found:

  • The service had enough staff to provide the right level of service. Staff had training in key skills and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care in sample collecting. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and fulfilled contract obligations with clinics. They supported patients to make decisions about their care and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week. Services were available to support timely care.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service was planned to meet the needs of local people, it took account of people’s individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and 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. The service were committed to improving services continually.

19 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We have not been able to speak to patients using the service because there were no patients available during our visit. We gathered evidence of patients' experiences of the service by reviewing their comments and other relevant sources, including feedback from patient surveys and audits.

We found overall, patients were satisfied with the quality of the service they received. One patient commented, 'I am very happy with the service. Well done'. We found this represented the views of patients who had taken part in a survey that had been recently conducted by the provider.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

Records of patients were kept securely and could be located in a timely manner when needed.

12 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with a relative of a patient who was satisfied that their relative's care needs were being met by the provider. 'This is our second time here. They are very good', a relative had told us.

Patients' privacy and dignity was respected. A relative told us 'our privacy is respected at all times.' We saw that staff closed the door when they were attending to patients.

The premises were well maintained and appeared clean and tidy. A relative confirmed that staff demonstrated good hygiene practices, some of which we had observed when we arrived. Patients, staff and others were protected from the risk of unsafe or unsuitable equipment because appropriate risk assessments of equipment had been completed.

The provider had systems to monitor the quality of the service, some of which we saw had been utilised to produce service improvement plans.

We were concerned that the provider did not operate effective recruitment procedures in order ensure that staff were of good character and had skills and experience which were necessary to their work.