• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Fast Medica Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2nd Floor, 20 Church Road, London, W7 1DR

Provided and run by:
Fast Medica Ltd

Assessment report published 10 February 2026

On this page

Responsive

Good

28 January 2026

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last inspection in August 2019, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

Person-centred Care

Score: 3

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.

Clinical records reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were mostly involved in planning for their care needs. They were also mostly involved in decisions about their care.

Care provision, Integration and continuity

Score: 3

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people. Care was flexible and supported choice and continuity.The service understood the potential of the health and care needs of people who choose to use their service.People had clear preferences about the treatment they wished to receive. The service maintained professional integrity by taking account of individual needs and preferences while ensuring care was provided in line with current best practice and clinical guidance.

Providing Information

Score: 3

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that met the individual needs of people who used the service.The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The website also provided detailed information about services and fees that people could access according to their preference.

Listening to and involving people

Score: 3

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We reviewed complaints and found they were managed in line with the service’s complaints policy. There was evidence that learning from complaints was shared, and staff were able to describe changes made in response to patient feedback, including complaints.

At the time of the inspection, the service was considering subscribing to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS), an external ombudsman service, to provide patients with an additional route of escalation should they remain dissatisfied with the service’s response.

Equity in access

Score: 3

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

The service ensured people were contacted after a procedure to check their progress. Records confirmed that these checks were monitored, and action taken to deal with lapses and ensure compliance with this procedure.The disability access risk assessment was carried out on 10 June 2025.The service operated from 9:00am to 9:00pm, Monday to Saturday. On Sundays, the service was open from 9:00am to 3:00pm.

Equity in experiences and outcomes

Score: 3

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service.

Planning for the future

Score: 3

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future treatments. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for future treatments. This information was shared with other services when necessary.