• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: First View Imaging Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Old Coach House, Cams Hall Estate, Fareham, Hampshire, PO16 8UT (01329) 221123

Provided and run by:
First View Imaging Limited

All Inspections

18 June to 21 June 2019

During a routine inspection

First View Limited is an ultrasound imaging service, operated by the provider, also known as First View Imaging Limited. The service offers ultrasound pregnancy scans and abdominal, gynaecological and fertility scans to the whole population. In practice, they offered services to men and women over 16 years of age. It has one ultrasound machine, and two waiting rooms.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 18 June 2019, and spoke with eight patients by phone on 19, 20 and 21 June 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. For this type of service, we do not rate effective.

This was the first time this service had been rated. We rated it as Good overall.

We found good practice in relation to diagnostic and imaging:

  • 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. Staff completed their mandatory training and competency assessments.

  • The service controlled infection risk well and kept equipment and premises visibly clean. It maintained safe premises and equipment, and managed clinical waste and blood samples well.

  • Staff identified and completed risk assessments for each patient and removed or minimised risks. They created records that were accurate and detailed, and staff kept these accessible and secure.

  • There had been no recorded patient safety incidents in the past 12 months. Staff recognised incidents and near misses and understood how to apply the duty of candour.

  • The service provided care based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. All staff were committed to continually learning to improve their service.

  • The service had an agreement with healthcare staff at a nearby NHS trust and based their policies on trust policies. Staff worked collaboratively to support patients though their health care.

  • The service monitored the effectiveness of the care their staff delivered and used findings to make improvements and achieve good outcomes for patients.

  • Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care.

  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs. This was confirmed by the patients we spoke with and by patient feedback obtained by the provider.

  • Staff provided emotional support and supported patients and their family to understand procedures, results and the next steps in their care.

  • The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of the local people. It also worked with other health providers to plan care.

  • The service took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. It offered appointments at times that suited patients and patients said they didn’t have to wait on arrival for their appointment.

  • It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff.

  • Leaders had the integrity, skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced and staff and patients told us they were visible and approachable.

  • The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve.

  • Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities and had regular opportunities to meet with the directors, discuss service plans and learn.

  • Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff and other health providers. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.

We found areas of practice that should be improved:

  • Staff took action in response to incidents, but they did not always record these actions in a systematic way.

  • The service undertook hand hygiene audits and advised staff of shortfalls but did not record the action required on the audit report.

  • There was no programme of regular audits of sonographer practice, to ensure they followed best practice guidance.

  • The service did not have access to translation services for those patients for whom spoken English is not their first language.

  • Some of the service’s policies and procedures were not dated and did not incorporate enough detail to provide guidance for staff. Despite this, staff understood what actions to take in relation to the topics covered, such as information management and safeguarding, and the service did not use bank or agency staff.

  • There was evidence that risks had been identified and managed, but these were not formally recorded within a risk management framework.

  • Office staff did not have annual appraisals, for the discussion of performance and development.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)

10 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection on 20 June 2013 we identified concerns in relation to staff.

People could not be assured that they were being cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff as the provider did not undertake appropriate checks prior to staff commencing work and did not hold all the necessary information about the staff suitability and qualifications.

We asked the provider to send us an action plan detailing what they would do to ensure they provided a safe service. We received this in August 2013.

At this inspection we reviewed the progress the provider had made in taking action to ensure compliance in the areas of concern. We found that the provider had taken appropriate measures to achieve compliance.

20 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection in February 2013 when we identified concerns with information provided to people, care planning, infection control, staffing and complaints. We made compliance actions asking the provider to take action in order that we were reassured that people were in receipt of safe and adequate care. The provider wrote to us and told us what action they were going to take and they sent us an update on their actions in May 2013.

We found that the provider had taken steps to improve processes and practice related to information provided to people, care planning, infection control and complaints.

We saw that before people received any care they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We spoke to two people who used the service, both told us they were asked for their consent before their scan.

We found that the provider had taken some steps towards ensuring that people were receiving care from staff who had maintained their professional registration, however this had not been completed for all staff.

We found that there was no recruitment processes in place meaning that people could not be assured that all relevant checks had been completed for all staff who worked in service.

12 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with one person who was attending the clinic for a scan. The person said the clinic was 'fine. I was seen very promptly. In effect earlier than my appointment.' No other people were available to speak to us.

The provider relied upon people accessing their website for information. People were not provided with information and guidance about the uncertainties in ultrasound imaging of the foetus associated with pregnancy scans.

We spoke with one person who told us their privacy and dignity had been maintained at all times.

One person told us how staff had assisted them in preparing for the scan and had asked for their verbal consent.

Staff told us people attending privately were always given a written report of the result of the scan before they leave the clinic.

We found the service to be clean and in a good state of repair, but there was no record of any cleaning being carried out. Staff and people who used the service were not adequately protected from the risk of infection because the provider did not have an effective system for monitoring the risk if infection in the clinic.

The provider did not have effective system in place to ensure staff training was up to date and that healthcare staff had maintained their registration and indemnity.

Information about how people could raise concerns was not available to people. We spoke with one person who did not know who they should contact if they wanted to make a complaint.