• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

LOC - Leaders in Oncology Care

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

95 Harley Street, London, W1G 6AF (020) 7317 2500

Provided and run by:
LOC Partnership Llp

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about LOC - Leaders in Oncology Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about LOC - Leaders in Oncology Care, you can give feedback on this service.

6 October 2021

During a routine inspection

This is the first time we rated this location. We rated it as outstanding because:

  • Staff went above and beyond to treat patients with compassion and kindness. The service was orientated towards respecting patients’ privacy and dignity. Staff took account of their individual needs and helped them understand their conditions. Patients and their families were provided with emotional support through a variety of support services. Despite the outpatient nature of the service, patients and their families had access to a wide selection of complementary therapies such as massage, aromatherapy and reiki. A wide range of psychological therapies was available dependent on patient choice and requirements. Mindfulness, relaxation and exercise sessions were available virtually for those who needed additional support at home.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of the people who used it, took account of patients’ and their families individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and waited minimally for treatment. As the service was part of an independent provider it was under no obligation to monitor waiting times for patients but did so in order to improve the service.
  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learnt lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, and supported them to make decisions about their care. Key services were available seven days a week across provider sites where required.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and local organisations to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.


  • At the time of inspection, not all staff had completed the required level of life support training.
  • There were seven nursing vacancies across the service at the time of inspection, although the service had enough nursing and support staff to keep patients safe as staffing was shared between the three sister sites. The service demonstrated it was actively recruiting into these vacancies with a number of initiatives, and senior staff provided clinical cover where required.
  • Two patient records we viewed did not include a holistic needs assessment.
  • At the time of our inspection, no data was collected specifically for patients receiving supportive and palliative care, although this was planned for the near future.

7 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke to four people who were using the service and they told us that they had signed written consent forms. We looked at four people's records and noted that they had consent forms which were signed by the person who was using the service and their consultant. One person who used the service told us "I felt fully involved at every stage of my treatment."

Staff we spoke with told us that they would administer medicines to people where they were prescribed by the consultant as part of the individual regime agreed for the person using the service. Staff told us that they had received training in the administration of medication and staff training records confirmed this.

Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Staff who we spoke with were able to confirm each step they had gone through as part of the recruitment process.

The service used a range of methods to monitor the quality of its services, including collecting the views of people who used it. People expressed positive comments to us on the service, such as 'the staff are responsive and I feel listened to."

People who spoke with us told us they felt confident that if they had a complaint or issue, that this would be listened to and responded to quickly. There was a complaints policy in place and staff we spoke to were aware of it and knew what action to take and who to contact if they received a complaint.

4 March 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the service told us that they were given information about their care and treatment before they underwent procedures. They said that staff were "very professional", "welcoming and friendly" and "very attentive".

People who use the service described it as "very good" and "fantastic" and 'excellent'. Appropriate medical checks were undertaken before people received treatment and they received appropriate after-care. Staff had been trained in what to do in a medical emergency and there were emergency drugs and equipment available.

Staff were trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. There was a policy and procedure in place on how to report any concerns, including to the local authority.

When staff started working at the service they received an induction. Staff undertook mandatory training on an annual basis, including what to do in a medical emergency. There was a procedure in place for all staff to receive an annual appraisal where their performance would be discussed and targets set for the coming year.

Staff at the service monitored the clinical outcomes of the treatment of patients. Regular patient feedback questionnaires were completed. People using the service told us that they would be happy to raise any concerns with staff if they had any.

16 March 2011

During a routine inspection

People who use services felt that staff did their best to protect their privacy and always treated them with respect. Most people felt that staff listened to them and offered them choices about their care and treatment as far as possible.

We talked to people and spent time observing care been delivered to people, overall the feedback was that people are been care for, looked after well, are given choices and have the opportunity to form good relationships with staff.