ClinicsDoctorsTreatmentsResourcesWho we areAsk PATHBelow-average outcomes — strongest for ages 40-42.
Based on age-adjusted HFEA live-birth data (2016–18) vs the UK national average.
Your question about this clinic travels with you — after sign-up it's waiting as the start of your first PATH conversation.
The reviews paint a picture of a fertility clinic whose reputation, at least among the reviewers provided, is undermined primarily by administrative and communication failures rather than clinical performance. Overall patient satisfaction, as expressed, is low: the salient impression is frustration and disappointment with access to basic channels of contact. The reviewer reports repeated, unanswered phone calls over a full week, lengthy on-hold times of up to an hour, and an absence of email responses. Those operational breakdowns dominate the narrative and leave the reviewer advising others to seek an alternative provider, a strong indicator of lost patient confidence. Staff attitude and communication are characterized in this feedback as unresponsive rather than actively rude; the criticism focuses on silence and inaccessibility rather than overt hostility. This distinction matters clinically because it suggests the problem is systemic — limited staffing or poor processes for patient contact — rather than individual interpersonal failings. Nevertheless, the experience of being repeatedly ignored or placed on long holds is perceived as disrespectful, particularly in the context of private care where expectations of attentive service are higher. Clinical expertise and outcomes are not described in the review and therefore remain unclear. The reviewer does reference “treatment” but uses the term to critique service quality rather than clinical results. Because there is no mention of medical competence, laboratory performance, live-birth rates, or treatment side effects, it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions about the clinic’s technical proficiency from this single comment. That absence itself is notable: when administrative failures are so prominent they eclipse any clinical commentary, prospective patients may worry that practical coordination of care could impact the overall treatment journey. Emotional support is indirectly impacted by the communication problems described. Fertility care is time-sensitive and emotionally charged; not being able to reach a clinic by phone or email can amplify patient anxiety and reduce confidence in the care pathway. The review implies that the clinic is not meeting basic expectations for responsiveness, which patients often equate with compassion and reliability. Wait times and administrative experience are the clearest weaknesses in the review. Long holds, no callback, and unanswered emails over a week constitute significant operational risk: missed appointments, delayed medication instructions, and increased stress are plausible consequences. A recurring theme is the mismatch between the premium price often associated with private providers and the level of service delivered. Cost concerns are explicitly raised as amplifying the reviewer’s dissatisfaction. In summary, this review highlights serious concerns about access and responsiveness, with a strong recommendation to consider alternative providers. The clinic’s clinical reputation cannot be judged from this feedback alone, but practically oriented service improvements — better phone triage, guaranteed response times, and clearer communication protocols — would likely address the principal issues raised.
Source: HFEA regulated data. Best age band: 40-42. Weakest: Under 35.
No cost details listed for this clinic. Contact the clinic directly for an indicative quote.
Patient-review insights for this clinic aren't ingested yet. The HFEA-regulated outcomes shown elsewhere on this page are the most reliable signal until then.
We don't yet have a verified consultant list for this clinic. Browse the full doctors directory for GMC-registered specialists.
Written in PATH's voice from this clinic's published HFEA data — reviewed before publishing, never generated live.
Lister Fertility Clinic at The Shard is rated below average by the HFEA, with a live-birth rate of 23% against a national average of 31%, a gap of eight percentage points. Its best results come in the 40-42 band, while the under-35 band is its weakest relative to the national figure - a pattern worth asking about, since it runs against what's typical for most clinics. This is a medium-volume clinic, so the numbers reflect a reasonably sized caseload rather than a handful of cycles.
This is a live-birth rate per embryo transferred, taken from HFEA-verified regulated data spanning 2016 to 2018. It reflects outcomes across the clinic's patients in that window rather than a statement about any individual case. When comparing clinics, check whether each is quoting per embryo transferred or per cycle started, since the two numbers answer different questions, and confirm which years the figures cover - a rate from an earlier or later period isn't directly comparable.
Worth raising directly - what's included in the quoted price and what add-on costs are typical, since the headline figure is rarely the full picture; and what their live-birth rates were for your age group in the latest HFEA data, given how much clinic averages can hide by band. Given the below-average result overall, it's also fair to ask what they think is driving that and what, if anything, has changed since. A good consultant should welcome these questions, not deflect them.
These answers use published data only — PATH personalizes once it knows your age, your numbers, and your story.
Ready to start your journey? Contact the clinic directly.
Ask PATH if this clinic fits youRequest ConsultationOpens in the app — you'll create a free account first.
Compare ClinicsfertilityPATH earns no referral fees. We recommend clinics based on data, not commercial relationships.
