The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Vantage Diagnostics Headquarters

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Suite 8 Barkat House, 116-118 Finchley Road, London, NW3 5HT (020) 7993 5870

Provided and run by:
Vantage Diagnostics Ltd

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Vantage Diagnostics Headquarters on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Vantage Diagnostics Headquarters, you can give feedback on this service.

6 August 2019

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We rated this service as Good overall.

Previous inspection 29 November 2018, when we found the provider was meeting the relevant standards.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Vantage Diagnostics Headquarters on 6 August 2019 as part of our current inspection programme. We previously inspected this service on 29 November 2018 using our previous methodology, when we found the service was compliant with the relevant regulations. At that inspection, we did not apply ratings.

The Vantage Diagnostics Ltd (the provider) offers an online dermatology consultancy triaging service (known as “teledermatology”) to general practitioners using digital photography and dermoscopy. The service allows GPs to submit photographs of rashes and lesions remotely for review by consultant dermatologists, who provide the GPs with a report including diagnosis, triage and treatment advice. Clinical responsibility for patients’ healthcare remains with their GPs. The service is not provided directly to patients and does not involve prescribing any medicines. At present the service is provided only to the West Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

The provider’s Clinical Liaison and Transformation Director is the registered manager for the service. 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.

At this inspection we found:

  • Risks were assessed and action taken to mitigate any risks identified. Arrangements were in place to safeguard people.
  • Suitable numbers of staff were employed and appropriately recruited. Staff received the appropriate training to carry out their role.
  • The provider carried out checks to ensure reviews met the expected service standards. A range of information, including clinical audit, was used to monitor and improve the quality and performance of the service.
  • The provider did not have any direct patient contact, but it took account of the views of the commissioning CCG and participating GPs in delivering services. Patients’ consent was required before reviews were accepted by the service’s IT system. Patient information was held securely. Information was appropriately shared with a patient’s own GP in line with GMC guidance.
  • Information about how to complain was available and complaints were handled appropriately.
  • The provider had clear leadership and governance structures.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

29 November 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Vantage Diagnostics on 29 November 2018, as part of our inspection programme. It had not been inspected previously.

The service provides online dermatology consultancy triaging (known as “teledermatology”) to general practitioners using digital photography and dermoscopy. The service allows GPs to submit photographs of rashes and lesions remotely for review by consultant dermatologists, who provide the GPs with a report including diagnosis, triage and treatment advice. Clinical responsibility for patients’ healthcare remains with their GPs. The service is not provided directly to patients and does not involve prescribing any medicines.

Vantage Diagnostics has other elements to its business which include the provision of decision support and workflow management software to healthcare providers. These are outside the scope of CQC registration.

Our findings in relation to the key questions were as follows:

Are services safe? – we found the service was providing a safe service in accordance with the relevant regulations. Specifically:

  • Arrangements were in place to safeguard people.
  • Suitable numbers of staff were employed and appropriately recruited.
  • Risks were assessed and action taken to mitigate any risks identified.

Are services effective? - we found the service was providing an effective service in accordance with the relevant regulations. Specifically:

  • Information was appropriately shared with a patient’s own GP in line with GMC guidance.
  • Quality improvement activity, including clinical audit, took place.
  • Staff received the appropriate training to carry out their role.

Are services caring? – we found the service was providing a caring service in accordance with the relevant regulations. Specifically:

  • The provider carried out checks to ensure reviews met the expected service standards.
  • Patient feedback reflected they found the service treated them with dignity and respect.
  • Patients had access to information about the consultant responsible their reviews.

Are services responsive? - we found the service was providing a responsive service in accordance with the relevant regulations. Specifically:

  • The provider did not have any direct patient contact, but it took account of the views of the commissioning CCG and participating GPs in delivering services.
  • Patients’ consent was required before reviews were accepted by the service’s IT system.
  • Information about how to complain was available and complaints were handled appropriately.

Are services well-led? - we found the service was providing a well-led service in accordance with the relevant regulations. Specifically:

  • The provider had clear leadership and governance structures.
  • A range of information was used to monitor and improve the quality and performance of the service.
  • Patient information was held securely.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice