108 Medical Limited - Harley Street

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

The service was previously inspected under the old methodology in 2013 and was assessed as meeting all standards. This is the first rated assessment for 108 Medical Limited – Harley Street service. This key question was rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, and communication needs with them.

Staff carried out individual risk assessments and action plans were put in place where risks were identified. Records showed risk assessments were routinely reviewed in conjunction with the patients.

Administrative staff gave a courtesy call to each patient the day before their first visit to confirm their attendance and ask if any further assistance would be needed on the day of their visit.

We were told the clinical radiographer reconfirmed patient’s assessment with them before providing any diagnostic treatment or test, to ensure the right treatment is provided to the right patient.

The service had a pre-operative assessment policy for staff to follow. It outlined the roles and responsibilities of staff and that all pre-operative assessments must be undertaken by registered staff who had successfully completed relevant supervised practice. Patients told us they had a pre-operative assessment before their surgery at independent hospital. The pre-operative assessment process identifies key risks and allowed staff to assess patients' needs and preferences.

Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to make improvements through implementing changes in their practice.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Patients' received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with best practice standards and national guidelines such as National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) guidelines. Updates regarding evidence-based care and treatment was reviewed at the governance meetings and if they were appropriate to the service shared with staff at monthly team meetings and morning safety huddles.

The provider’s systems ensured staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based best practice and required standards through the provision of training and development program for staff. We were told there were monthly governance meetings at which discussions regarding any new evidence-based developments that the service needs to implement. We also heard there was a consultant who acted as an evidence-based lead for the service.

All policies we saw were stored on a database which alerted staff to new policies for them to read. Managers could see who had read the policies and reminded staff who were overdue to read them. We reviewed several policies and saw they were all up to date and referenced national legislation and guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people.

The clinic manager informed us the teams worked together to prepare patients for what to expect post-operatively including when they returned home. Staff worked well across the team and with other services to support patients'.

Patients' spoke positively about the way their care and treatment were coordinated. They told us the staff across the service worked well together as a team and shared information with the independent hospital and their General Practitioner (GP).

Multidisciplinary meetings took place weekly to discuss risks highlighted at patients’ pre-operative assessments, so that action could be taken to mitigate the risks identified. There was daily communication between multidisciplinary team members at the service and operating hospital, we were told the service worked well across teams. The clinic manager told us care was coordinated across different disciplines and support services, such as nurses, radiographers, sonographers and the administrative team, to ensure safe care and treatment was delivered. We were told that patients’ assessments were shared with the independent hospital to provide continuous care. This was noted in a formalised service level agreement between the 2 services.

Staff had online and face to face training opportunities for career development including professional development courses funded by the provider.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

Patients completed a health assessment questionnaire prior to treatment, and this was used to identify areas of support. The service had relevant information promoting healthy lifestyles and support in patient areas. A range of health promotion materials were displayed in the reception and waiting areas of the clinic. These provided information and signposting to support services appropriate to certain conditions. Patients told us they received good support from staff and were provided with information around healthier living.

Staff told us they routinely discussed health promotion and lifestyle choices with patients. They told us patients needing additional support could be referred to other healthcare professionals, such as dietitians.

We were told that patients' were provided with relevant health information materials, such as leaflets on smoking or alcohol use and how to access local support services. Staff and consultants were able to signpost patients to a variety of other health promotional material for conditions such as skin diseases, asthma etc.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

Patient outcomes were monitored by the consultants, for example, consultants worked with patients to assess their needs. Staff used audits to measure outcomes. For example, in the previous 12 months the service achieved 100% compliance with a monthly pre assessment audit and 98% compliance with a quarterly documentation audit, these audits showed care and treatment provided were in line with provider’s guidelines. We reviewed the medical advisory committee (MAC) minutes from April to August 2025, that showed the service had no concerns in any of their monitoring outcomes.

Patients spoke positively about the quality of the care and treatment they received. They reported positive outcomes after surgery such as an improvement in their health and wellbeing. They were pleased with their recovery and said they had been fully informed about the recovery process and what to expect.

Patients' told us they did not have to wait long for appointments and had no delays. They told us they had received aftercare support from consultants and nurses.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff provided Information regarding treatment to patients at the point of contact with the service and during consultation. This included explanations of what to expect from their individual treatment plans. Formal written consent was obtained by the treating clinician on the day of treatment. Patients told us they were given opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification regarding any aspect of their treatment at every stage of the process, including during treatment. The consent process included a discussion of the patient’s medical history so that staff could identify risks or barriers to treatment. Staff were skilled in supporting patients in sensitive discussions and knew how to gain appropriate consent when treatment involved multiple services.

We saw an interaction where consent was obtained. We found the staff were engaging with the patient, provided appropriate information and completed the consent form alongside the patient while checking their understanding. There was an up-to-date consent policy which staff followed when gaining consent from patients.