During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 25 March 2026 (Site visit).
We carried out this announced comprehensive assessment as part of our regulatory functions.
90 Sloane Street is a private independent clinic based in Central London.
The clinic offered a range of services, including GPs, cardiology, oncology, dermatology, psychology, paediatric and neonatal care. The clinic also provided in-house laboratory testing, ECGs and other diagnostic services, supporting timely assessment, diagnosis and treatment.
Safe: The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Most risks were managed effectively. However, we identified some areas for improvement, including recruitment checks, legionella management, oversight of pathology results, the use of patient coding within the clinical system, and maintaining a log relating to safety alerts. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.
Effective: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Access to in-house laboratory and diagnostic services, including ECGs, supported timely clinical assessment and decision-making. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. The service worked with other services involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.
Caring: People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.
Responsive: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. According to the complaints policy, the service stated that patients would be given the right to escalate complaints to ISCAS. However, the service was unable to provide evidence of registration with ISCAS.
Well-led: The service had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. Staff were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. However, we found that governance was not fully effective in some areas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to broaden their knowledge through continuous professional development. The service offered innovative genomic screening programmes to support the early identification of health risks. In-house diagnostic services and access to specialist cardiology input enabled timely assessment, diagnosis and treatment.