Cancer Centre London LLP

Updated 6 February 2020

Cancer Centre London LLP is operated by Aspen Healthcare Limited. The centre was opened in 2003. It is a private cancer centre in Wimbledon, in the London borough of Merton. The centre primarily serves the communities of south west London, Surrey and the neighbouring towns and cities across the south of England. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area.

There are no inpatient beds at CCL. However, there is a formal arrangement for CCL patients needing inpatient treatment to be treated on a ward at Parkside Hospital, which is under the same management. The ward is specifically for oncology patients and has oncology trained nurses. Both CCL and Parkside Hospital have the same registered manager. The registered manager for CCL had been in post since April 2019.

The centre offers a range of oncology services, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, nuclear medicine and patient support services such as complementary therapy; dietitian; psychosocial services and a patient information centre.

Updated 6 February 2020

Cancer Centre London LLP (CCL) is operated and managed by Aspen Healthcare Ltd, but part-owned by a limited liability partnership of group of consultants working at the centre.

Cancer Centre London LLP provides outpatient cancer treatment including chemotherapy and radiotherapy services. CCL is a specialist oncology day treatment centre registered to treat adult cancer patients (18 years and older). It is located in Wimbledon in the London borough of Merton and mainly treats private patients from south west London, Surrey and the neighbouring areas.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. The inspection was unannounced on 18 September 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so, we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

Our rating of this centre stayed the same. We rated it as Good overall.

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it.

• The service controlled infection risk well and had suitable premises and equipment and looked after the general environment well.

• Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient and kept detailed records of patients’ care.

• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

• The service provided best practice when prescribing, dispensing, recording and storing medicines.

• The service managed patient safety incidents well by completing investigations and learning from outcomes. The service used safety monitoring results well and used them to initiate change of practice.

• Staff cared for the patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness and provided emotional support.

• The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of patients. The service took account of patient’s individual needs.

• The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results and shared these with staff.

• Managers at all levels had the skills and ability to run a service and shared a corporate strategy, vision and values with the staff of what it wanted to achieve.

• Managers promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (South & London)

Updated 6 February 2020

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led because;

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to most staff. Staff were trained in a variety of mandatory training subjects sufficient to provide key skills for their roles.

• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and knew how to apply it.

• Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient. They kept clear records and asked for support when necessary.

• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance. Staff completed appraisals and completed competencies for individual skill sets.

• Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress. We observed that staff were sensitive and respectful of patients.

• Staff involved patients and those close to them were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients told us they felt listened to during their consultations and that their preferences had been taken in to account.

• The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people. The service took account of patients’ individual needs. Identifying individual need was part of the assessment process.

• The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, and shared these with staff.

• The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve. The strategy was developed by the corporate senior management team, with objectives cascaded to the cancer centre staff.

• There were clear lines of leadership and accountability in the cancer centre.