• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

One Stop Doctors Ltd T/A OSD Healthcare

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

One Medical House, Boundary Way, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP2 7YU

Provided and run by:
One Stop Doctors Ltd T/A OSD Healthcare

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 December 2021

OSD Healthcare is a private hospital located in Hemel Hempstead, established in August 2016. One Stop Doctors Ltd is trading as OSD Healthcare. OSD regulated activities include:

  1. Family planning services
  2. Treatment of disease, disorder, or injury
  3. Surgical procedures
  4. Diagnostic and screening procedures

Nominated Individual: Ray Guirguis, Chief Executive Officer

Registered Manager: Ray Guirguis, Chief Executive Officer

The hospital has 12 consultation and treatment rooms, a purpose-built gym for physiotherapy and rehabilitation, four dental suites and specialist diagnostic imaging department.

The following services are provided to patients:

  1. GP (General Practitioner) service
  2. Diagnostic imaging: including CT (Computed Tomography), MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), X-ray, US, and Mammography
  3. Dental service: including CBCT and 3D implant diagnostics
  4. Outpatient minor procedures and phlebotomy
  5. Outpatient consultations with Consultants across a wide range of specialties
  6. Physiotherapy

The hospital design met the needs of different patient groups with disabled access, lifts, a reflection room onsite, hearing loops and language line for translation services.

The Day Case Unit comprised of:

Two integrated theatres with laminar flow

Four recovery bays

Nine bed day case ward all of which are en-suite individual rooms

They are supported by an onsite pharmacy.

Key surgical specialties include:

  • Urology/Gynaecology
  • Breast Care
  • Pain Management
  • Orthopaedics
  • ENT/ Maxillofacial
  • General Surgery/ Endoscopy

The main service provided by this hospital was surgery. We also inspected diagnostic imaging, outpatient and children and young people’s services. Where our findings on surgery – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery core service report.

What people who use the service say

People who used the service regularly left feedback directly after their appointment using an electronic feedback system, verbally or electronic communication. We looked at the reviews which were overwhelmingly positive. For example, “an amazing GP, highly professional, friendly and reassuring,” and “OSD provides a wonderful service… recommend to friends and family.” Other patients emailed asking to pass on thanks to the doctor they saw for “excellent care” and “compassion.”

Overall inspection


Updated 13 December 2021

We rated this location as good because:

  • People were protected by an effective safety system, and a focus on openness, transparency and learning when things went wrong.
  • Staff took a proactive approach to anticipating and managing risks to people who used services. This was embedded and was recognised as the responsibility of all staff.
  • Staff could discuss risk effectively with people using the service.
  • Compliance with medicines policy and procedure was routinely checked and action plans were always implemented promptly.
  • There was a genuinely open culture in which all safety concerns raised by staff and people who used the service were highly valued as being integral to learning and improvement.
  • All staff were open and transparent, and fully committed to reporting incidents and near misses. The level and quality of incident reporting showed the levels of harm, which ensured a robust picture of quality.
  • Learning was based on a thorough analysis and investigation of things that went wrong. All staff were encouraged to take part in learning to improve safety as much as possible. Where relevant, staff participated in local and national safety programmes. Opportunities to learn from external safety events were identified.
  • The continuing development of the staff’s skills, competence and knowledge was recognised as being integral to ensuring high-quality care. Staff were proactively supported and encouraged to acquire new skills, use their transferable skills, and share best practice.
  • People were respected and valued as individuals and empowered as partners in their care, and emotionally.
  • Feedback from people who used the service, those who were close to them was continually positive about the way staff treated people. People thought that staff went the extra mile, and their care and support exceeded their expectations.
  • There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted people’s dignity. Relationships between people who used the service, those close to them and staff were strong, caring, respectful and supportive.
  • People accessed services and appointments in a way and at a time that suited them. Technology was used innovatively to ensure people had timely access to treatment, support, and care.
  • The leadership, governance and positive safety culture were used to drive and improve the delivery of high-quality person-centred care.
  • There was compassionate, inclusive, and effective leadership at all levels. Leaders showed high levels of experience, capacity and capability needed to deliver excellent and sustainable care. There was a deeply embedded system of leadership development and succession planning.
  • Comprehensive and successful leadership strategies were in place to ensure and sustain delivery and to develop the desired culture. Leaders had a deep understanding of issues, challenges, and priorities in their service.
  • The strategy and supporting objectives and plans were stretching, challenging and innovative, while remaining achievable. Strategies and plans were fully aligned with plans in the wider health economy, and there was a demonstrated commitment to system-wide collaboration and leadership.
  • There was a systematic and integrated approach to monitoring, reviewing, and providing evidence of progress against the strategy and plans. Plans were consistently implemented and had a positive impact on quality and sustainability of services.


  • Patients did not have pressure ulcer risk scores or Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool scores. The tool was approved to be used and was with the printers.
  • Medication administration records did not include the age or weight of patients. Patient’s age and weight were recorded in the patient records and nationally recognised medication charts were approved to be used and the document was with the printers.
  • Staff were not given consistent or documented one to one supervision across the entire service.