• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Freedom from Torture Also known as Freedom from Torture

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

111 Isledon Road, Finsbury Park, London, N7 7JW (020) 7697 7777

Provided and run by:
Freedom from Torture

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 19 July 2017

The Medical Foundation London is a charitable organisation that provides a range of services aimed at rehabilitating survivors of torture from around the world who are now living in the UK. The service operates from Monday to Friday and from 9am to 5pm.

The Medical Foundation London is registered to provide the regulated activity of: treatment of disease, disorder or injury

We inspected the regulated activity that was delivered by three volunteer doctors. The doctors provide medical consultations to adult survivors of torture. Following a medical consultation, the doctor sends a recommended treatment plan to the patient’s registered GP . The service does not prescribe medication or conduct medical treatment. The doctors usually complete a one-off medical consultation. However, therapy staff can re-refer patients to the service doctor as needed.

The Medical Foundation London offers other services to people and these do not fall within the scope of the registered regulated activity. This includes the therapy service (psychotherapists, counsellors and family therapists) and the in-house medico-legal service in which healthcare professionals support clients with legal documentation.

Medical Foundation London was last inspected by CQC in November 2012 under our previous methodology and was found to be compliant in all areas.

Overall inspection


Updated 19 July 2017

We rated The Medical Foundation London as good because:

  • Medical assessment rooms were equipped with the necessary equipment to carry out basic physical examinations. All areas were visibly clean and furnishings well maintained. There were good fire safety systems in place. Patients were seen promptly when referred to the doctor. Staff were familiar with the provider’s incident reporting procedures and were debriefed following incidents.

  • Staff completed comprehensive assessments in a timely manner. Care and treatment records were personalised, holistic and recovery orientated. This included good assessment of patient’s physical health needs. The service offered patients a wide range of psychological therapies recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE ) and support for employment, housing and benefits. There were good working relationships between the doctors and therapists. Doctors supported patients to make decisions and sought patient consent before conducting medical consultations.

  • Staff treated patients with kindness, dignity and respect. Patients were invited to give feedback on the service they received.

  • The service reviewed patients promptly at different stages of the referral pathway. Medical consultation rooms were sound-proofed and well-maintained. The service offered patients a variety of support and activity groups. The service had very good access to interpreters. Key patient information was provided in 13 different languages. Patients knew how to complain and information on how to complaint was available to them. The service handled complaints appropriately.

  • Staff enjoyed working at the service and were committed to providing good quality care and support to survivors of torture. The provider’s governance arrangements included checks that ensured doctors were appropriately qualified and competent. The service had a risk register in place and senior management reviewed it regularly. The service demonstrated its commitment to quality improvement and innovation.


  • The service did not have adequate systems in place to safely assess and manage risk to patients and staff. Where patients had mental health issues, staff had not completed comprehensive risk assessments and these were not updated following recent incidents. Risk management plans did not include information, developed with patients, on what to do in a crisis. There were inadequate systems in place to monitor patient’s change in risk when they were waiting to be seen at intake panel or initial assessment.

  • The service had not always notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of notifiable incidents.

  • Not all staff had completed the appropriate mandatory training. The service did not have systems in place to monitor staff supervision and mandatory training rates.

  • The service had not kept up to date cleaning records for the building and examination equipment. The service had not completed an environmental risk assessment for the outdoor communal space, including the garden.