• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

RAAM London Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

77 Harley Street, Lower Ground Floor, London, W1G 8QN

Provided and run by:
RAAM London Limited

Assessment report published 11 November 2025

On this page

Effective

Good

23 October 2025

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

At our previous inspection we identified concerns about the way the service monitored outcomes and also found gaps in required staff training. At this assessment, we found that the service had improved. It had introduced proactive monitoring of training and a programme of audit covering clinical and non-clinical aspects of care with better oversight of clinical record keeping.

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.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People said their needs were understood and they were able to discuss treatment options before making a decision. Staff used the care records system to note any specific individual needs.

The doctors screened for mental health problems as part of the initial assessment consultation.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. The service offered some procedures under the category of sexual rejuvenation that were novel in the UK and for which there are no current nationally produced guidelines. The lead doctor maintained and developed their knowledge of these procedures (which were relatively low risk and non-invasive) through international sources of evidence and education. They were personally training a recently recruited doctor with regular supervision and oversight.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support.

People using the service typically did not need to consult other teams or services in the course of their treatment. However, the service was able to direct people to diagnostic services (for example, for blood tests) or an independent pharmacy in the immediate area if required.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service routinely followed up with people by telephone after certain treatments to check their recovery. Three people commented on the service as part of this assessment and all told us they were happy with the outcome. The service had a specialism in sexual health and 1 person commented that their treatment had helped to restore sexual function and this was an important outcome for them.

The service had introduced proactive monitoring of training and a programme of audit covering clinical and non-clinical aspects of care. There was better oversight of clinical record keeping, for example, images were now being uploaded to the relevant electronic patient records. The lead doctor was now auditing clinical record keeping.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded.