108 Medical Limited - Harley Street

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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 needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service involved patients at every stage of the assessment and treatment process. All treatment plans we saw were individualised and were reviewed throughout the time patients spent with the service. The service was equipped with a range of facilities to support patients to have a positive experience and meet their individual needs.

We noted that the reception and waiting areas were equipped with comfortable seating, drinking water, tea and coffee, including herbal and decaffeinated options. Staff provided access to quiet or private waiting areas on request.

Staff monitored and acted to minimise missed appointments using text message reminders. Staff ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted by the service and appointments were rearranged, as appropriate.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. Patients we spoke with during the inspection told us they felt their care needs were joined up and supported their individual choice. These views were limited to those we spoke with during the inspection and may not reflect the views from the full diversity of the patients seen at the service.

Staff we spoke with gave us examples that demonstrated an understanding of some of the diverse needs of the patients receiving care. For example, we heard from administration, clerical, and nursing staff about adjustments that would be made for people with reduced mobility, people requiring a quiet space to wait, or for breast feeding mothers.

Staff told us that there was a standard operating process for checking individual needs when booking appointments. We reviewed assessments booking audits and found that an accessibility question was included in the requirements for booking calls to prompt staff.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We were informed that the service used literature from a national cancer organisation, which was extensively available in communal patient areas of the service. This was used as it was information from a trustworthy source and used nationally in a range of health settings.

Reception staff kept patients up to date with waiting and treatment times when patients were in the waiting area. The team actively monitored who was waiting to be seen and let them know in advance if their clinic was running late.

Patients were given clear information about their care and treatment before their schedule surgery at the independent hospital. This included how to manage pain, take care of their wound, spot signs of infection, and to keep clean by washing their hands and body.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Patients were given information leaflets during their initial consultation which included information on how to raise concerns about the service, the patients we spoke with told us they understood how to raise a concern or make a complaint and would contact the service directly if they had any concerns. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. There had been complaint which was not upheld and twenty compliments from April to August 2025. Managers understood the importance of investigating complaints as per the services’ policy and processes.

Staff told us they always tried to address complaints or concerns immediately and provide re-assurance to patients. Patients were given details of how to make a complaint if the problem could not be resolved. Managers shared feedback from patients compliments and complaints with staff during staff meetings and learning from complaints and compliments was used to improve the service.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service offered flexible booking arrangements and the patient booking team monitored cancellations and offered patients rebooking options. We were told cancellations due to consultant unavailability or booking errors were rare in the service, however we were not provided with data to demonstrate the number of booking cancellations. The provider offered online consultation when this was safe and appropriate, and made sure patients could communicate in the most convenient way for them.

In the previous 12 months, over 99% of patients said their consultant had shown them understanding when assessing their needs and 98% felt they had sufficient time with their consultant. All areas of the service were accessible step-free via elevator access.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had an equality, diversity, and inclusion policy that facilitated staff to identify and address discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage diverse groups of people in accessing care.

Staff considered each patient’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs under the Equality Act. All staff completed cultural awareness training, equality and diversity training and autism awareness training as part of their mandatory training. the service commitment to staff development.

Staff demonstrated to us that they were aware of discrimination and inequality. Staff provided examples of adjustments they might make for people to ensure equity in experiences, for example, adjusting appointment times for people who were unwell or who lived far away from London.

Clinical staff gave examples of how they provided a positive patient experience and protected people’s rights by promoting equality and removing barriers, this was based on their own knowledge and experience, rather than through an established process

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were supported to make an informed choices about their care and plan their future care and treatment. Patients told us they were kept informed about future appointments.

Most of the patients' we spoke with felt they were able to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care at a time that they were able to. People were given time to ask questions about their treatment options and extra support to understand what the treatment options meant, to help them plan their future treatment. When staff asked patients to consent to invasive treatment procedures, they provided them with information about all the risks involved in having the treatment and what not having the treatment was likely to mean.