London Medical 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 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.