• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

London Medical Laboratory Limited

Zone 1, 2 Pensbury Street, London, SW8 4TJ

Provided and run by:
London Medical Laboratory Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 January 2022

The London Medical Laboratory Ltd was founded in November 2016 and is an independent clinical testing specialist and provider of pathology diagnostics services to people across the healthcare sector. They offer pathology testing solutions across many disciplines including clinical biochemistry, immunology, haematology, sexual health screening and molecular biology. Such tests include, health and wellness checks, thyroid function, liver and kidney, cholesterol and heart tests, as well as hormone, fertility, and sexual health tests.The London Medical Laboratory Ltd has several branches around greater London. However, these branches do not fall within CQC’s scope of registration and therefore these aspects of the service were not inspected. The service also conducts Covid 19 testing, such as, PCR swab tests and antibody tests. On 15 December 2020, the law changed. Coronavirus testing has been exempted as a regulated activity under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This means that any testing activity in relation to coronavirus has been taken out of scope of CQC registration. The new Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards (England) Regulations 2020 require all private coronavirus test providers to become accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

At the time of inspection, the service was working towards the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) standards ISO 15189 for all of their blood tests. They had recently received UKAS accreditation ISO for all of their Covid 19 sampling. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by the Government as the sole national accreditation body.

The service is regulated to provide Diagnostic and Screening procedures and there is a registered manager in post.

Overall inspection

Updated 13 January 2022

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 and interaction with patients.

  • The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience. Areas and equipment within the laboratory were clean and well maintained and the service-controlled infection risks well. The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. There was a good system to report safety incidents and staff knew how to report and act on incidents and near misses.
  • Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and staff completed risk assessments for each test performed. The service ensured quality was monitored through participating in external and internal quality assurance programmes. Services provided were based on national guidance and evidence-based practice.
  • Managers monitored and made sure staff were competent for their role and staff worked well together for the benefit of people. The laboratory was available seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day.
  • The service planned and provided a service that met the needs of the people using the service and those who referred people there. People could access the service when they needed it and received laboratory results quickly. People could provide feedback to the service to be used for quality improvements.
  • Leaders had the skills and abilities to perform their roles and a good understanding of the services they ran. Staff felt respected, valued and supported.
  • The leaders used reliable systems to manage performance and quality and used systems to support staff to develop. There was a vision and set of values which staff understood and applied to their work. All staff were committed to continuously learning and improving the service.

However:

  • Some of the paper training records were incomplete. Although the service was able to provide evidence of training, the service recognised better systems of streamlining training were needed and were in the process of developing these.