Advance Histopathology Laboratory Limited

We did not rate this service. This is because CQC does not apply a rating to independent laboratory services.

We looked at four key questions: is the service safe, effective, responsive and well led. We did not inspect caring as the service does not have direct contact or interaction with patients.

• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. The service-controlled infection risk well. All areas and equipment within the laboratory were clean and well-maintained. The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. Staff completed risk assessments for each test carried out, and for equipment used and the environment. There was a system to report safety incidents and staff knew how to report incidents and near misses.
• Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. The service provided services based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. Staff worked well together and with their partners for the benefit of patients and the service. The service was available six days a week with urgent cover available out of working hours and during busy times to support the requirement of the service.
• The laboratory planned and provided a service in a way that met the needs of referring clinicians using the service. Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. Referring clinicians could access the service when they needed it and received the laboratory results promptly. There was an annual user feedback survey which referring clinicians and external partners were invited to complete.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service and were visible and approachable. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. The information systems were integrated and secure. Leaders and staff engaged well with colleagues and there were positive, collaborative relationships with external partners.

However:

• At the time of inspection, the safeguarding lead for the service had not completed the required level of training for this role.