Innovate Diagnostics

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were always at the center of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways which met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant patients’ needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service made usually sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff would contact patients before their appointment to ensure that they had the right equipment, such as wheelchairs. Staff told us that they also ensured the staff were comfortable and made aware of a person’s needs before a patient’s appointment. 

At the time of the assessment, arrangements for accessing interpreters and signers were not formally established. Following the inspection, the provider acted promptly and provided evidence that a system had been implemented to ensure staff, patients, families, and carers could obtain support from interpreters or signers when required.

The service’s reception area was constantly manned whilst we were inspecting and people were able to access toilets, water and have access to a café if they wished. The service did not have a separate area for children and young people. However, the service did not scan people under the age of 18.

Staff told us that self-funding patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or assessment (either in full or partially), they were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the services to be provided, including as to the amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible this was always provided in writing prior to the commencement of the service.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked with local organisations and partners to support the continuity of care for people using the service. Leaders also worked collaboratively with external stakeholders to develop and enhance diagnostic pathways. This included introducing new diagnostic technologies, such as loop recorders, to improve access to diagnostic investigations and support the ongoing monitoring and management of patients.

The service had processes in place to support patients who required additional specialist input. Staff could access support from local cardiac services where significant or urgent findings were identified, helping to ensure patients received timely assessment, treatment and ongoing care where required. Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements. This was done by email and would suggest a new time and date for patients. 

The service operated Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm. An out-of-hours telephone service was also available, enabling patients to contact a physiologist 24 hours a day. Staff told us this service allowed patients to report issues and receive advice on troubleshooting over the phone, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of unusable results and supporting the collection of accurate data at the first attempt. However, due to the size of the service and the limited number of full-time physiologists, only one member of staff was available to provide out-of-hours telephone support. This could result in delays in responding to patients if that staff member was unavailable. Staff described the arrangements in place for managing out-of-hours support, and we did not identify any evidence to suggest that this had adversely affected the delivery of the service.

The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients received information about their diagnostic examination prior to attendance through telephone discussions or email correspondence. Staff told us this included information about the procedure and how to use any monitoring equipment where applicable. Information could be provided in accessible formats, including through translation services, to support patients whose first language was not English. Patients were given details of how to contact the service if they required advice or experienced difficulties, including access to support during and outside normal operating hours. Results were communicated to the referring clinician, GP or insurance provider, who were responsible for discussing outcomes and any subsequent steps with the patient.

The service generally made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had processes in place for people to provide feedback about their care and experience, including public feedback forms, patient surveys, online reviews, and direct communication with the service. Staff told us that concerns raised by people using the service were reviewed and responded to, although the only patient feedback evidence available during the assessment was through Google reviews. Records we reviewed provided evidence that care was planned and delivered in a way that reflected people's individual needs and preferences. The service's role was primarily to undertake diagnostic testing and communicate results to referring clinicians, GPs, or insurance providers, meaning decisions relating to ongoing care and treatment were generally made outside of the service. However, staff told us they encouraged patients to ask questions and seek clarification where required, and patients we spoke with told us they felt comfortable raising queries with staff.

Complaints or concerns were investigated thoroughly. Patients received a response in good time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. We reviewed all formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy. 

Patients could take any unresolved complaints to a third-party organisation or an independent sector complaint service, and this information was readily available. Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice.

The service usually made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Managers monitored waiting times. People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Staff told us that, while specialist mobility or accessibility equipment was not routinely held on site, patients were asked about any additional support or access needs during the booking process and arrangements could be made where required. Waiting times from referral to treatment, and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients, were in line with national standards for NHS patients referred through the Choose and Book system. Where there were large waiting lists, these were monitored and reduced over time.

Staff managed the department usage and occupancy for patient flow well. Staff described their service as a journey from reception to each clinical room which allowed patients to flow through each part or their diagnostics. Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. They did this by only taking bookings where they had clinicians available. When patients had their appointments cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible. Patients we spoke with during the assessment did not raise any concerns about the length of time they were kept waiting for their appointment. During the inspection, we observed 1 patient complete their diagnostic testing as planned. The patient attended on time and progressed through each stage of the diagnostic process without delay or interruption.

We did not gather evidence for this on this assessment.

Patients were usually supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff discussed health lifestyles for going home and recovery from the patient's operation. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice. Patients were provided with information about how they would receive results and from whom and any related follow-up appointments.