Archived: Manchester Surgical Services Limited

This is the first time we have rated this service. We rated it as good overall because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• The service did not have an effective process for carrying out checks on company directors, in line with regulatory requirements for fit and proper persons; directors.
• Leaders did not always carry out relevant checks for employed or contracted staff as part of their recruitment and practicing privileges processes, such as checks for suitable references or periodic updates on disclosure and barring service checks.
• Leaders did not always have effective assurance processes in place relating to the premises, equipment or staff supplied by the host organisations used by the service. However, the service had planned actions to improve this.
• The majority of staff had not yet completed their annual appraisal for the current year.
• The number of patients that did not attend outpatient appointments was worse than the national standard.
• Staff had not completed specific training on learning disability and autism, in line with national guidelines.