• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

London Lung Laboratory Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

54 New Cavendish Street, London, W1G 8TQ

Provided and run by:
London Lung Laboratory Limited

Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at London Lung Laboratory Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

19 October 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

  • The service had made the required improvements and was led by a suitably skilled practitioner. They had set up a reliable governance system, during which risks were fully considered as part of a regular meeting. Policies and procedures which guided safe and effective practice were relevant to the service and had control measures to ensure they were up to date.
  • The registered manager had undertaken the required safeguarding training and had developed policies to support this area for both vulnerable adults and children.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring and responsive and leadership had improved.

09 February 2022

During a routine inspection

We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • The service did not have a safeguarding policy and the sole member of staff had not undertaken any safeguarding training.
  • The service did not formally document any audits of patient outcomes, service risks or governance meetings.


  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key technical skills and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risks well. Risks to patient safety were assessed and acted upon. There were good care records, and medicines were managed safely.
  • The service followed current national guidance related to COVID-19.
  • Patients were treated with compassion and kindness. Their privacy and dignity was respected and staff took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand the tests they were about to have.
  • The service made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services.

We rated this service overall as requires improvement because safe was rated as inadequate, effective was not rated, well led was rated as requires improvement, and caring and responsive, were rated as good.

28 February 2013

During a routine inspection

Tests were discussed with patients when they booked their appointment. Written information was provided which included details on how tests worked and what was involved. In peoples' written comments they stated that they felt "very at ease" during their test, that the service was "relaxed" and that staff were "kind" and "friendly".

Prior to undergoing tests details were taken about a person's medical history, medications and allergies. In recent patient feedback the majority of people said they were "completely satisfied" with the service and that they would be "very likely" to recommend the service to others. In their written comments they described the service as "very good" and "very efficient". Staff had been trained in basic life support and what to do in a medical emergency for which there was a policy and procedure in place.

On the day of the inspection the service was clean and tidy. Personal protective equipment, including gloves and alcohol gel, was available. The service was cleaned on a daily basis by an external cleaner and clinical areas were cleaned by the clinician between each patient.

The clinician at the service underwent training on an annual basis which included how to handle medical emergencies as well as learning and development courses relating specifically to the tests the service offered.

The clinician undertook regular reviews of test results and benchmarked them to assess their accuracy.