• 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

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 5 September 2019

Vantage Diagnostics (the provider) offers an online dermatology consultancy triaging service to general practitioners using digital photography and dermatoscopy. A dermatoscope is a medical instrument with a light and magnifying lens, that can be attached to a digital camera or phone. The service allows GPs to set up referrals to submit photographs of patients’ 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, which includes making any routine referrals to secondary care. The reports are issued to GPs within three working days of the photographs being submitted. The service is provided under a contract with one NHS CCG – West Suffolk – with 24 participating general practices and approximately 200,000 patients. The service is not provided directly to patients and does not involve prescribing any medicines. There are no age-restrictions, with GPs being able to refer children under the age of 18-years to the service. But in practice most patients referred are adults.

The provider was registered by the Care Quality Commission under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in January 2013, in relation to the regulated activity Transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely. The provider has other elements to its business which are outside the scope of CQC registration. These include the provision of decision support and workflow management software to healthcare providers. It also provides the dermatology triage IT system and technical support to another CCG, but it is not responsible for clinical reviews in that instance.

The teledermatology service to West Suffolk CCG has been provided since October 2014. Approximately 1,000 referrals had been reviewed in the last 12 months. The contract was recently extended for a further year.

The provider operates at Barkat House, 116-118 Finchley Road, London NW3 5HT, where its management, technical, administrative and support staff are based. Clinical staff are based elsewhere and access the service’s online system remotely using suitable security protocols.

How we inspected this service

This inspection was carried out by a CQC inspector and a GP specialist adviser.

Before the inspection we gathered and reviewed information from the provider and feedback from the CCG. During the inspection we spoke with the provider’s Chief Executive, the Clinical Liaison and Transformation Director, who is also the registered manager, and members of the administration team. 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. We also spoke with the main clinician, a consultant dermatologist, who is a doctor registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) with a licence to practice.

We reviewed the provider’s operating procedures and governance policies and looked at a number of triage review records.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the following five questions:

  • Is it safe?
  • Is it effective?
  • Is it caring?
  • Is it responsive to people’s needs?
  • Is it well-led?

These questions therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 5 September 2019

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