Innovate Diagnostics

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders had sound oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of patients and their communities.

The service had a clear vision and strategy that set out what it wanted to achieve and how this would be delivered. Leaders demonstrated a shared understanding of the service's aims and objectives. The Managing Director, who was the lead for the physiotherapy aspect of the business, and the Medical Director, who was responsible for the diagnostic and clinical services, were both able to clearly articulate the service's vision and strategic priorities. Their accounts were consistent with each other and reflected the provider's overarching aims and objectives.

Staff were focused on the needs of patients. The service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for career development when staff requested it. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and carers as well as staff could raise concerns without fear. For example, the office receptionist raised some concerns that she was not first aid trained. The service arranged for that member of staff to receive first aid training. 

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. We saw how managers and staff interacted and saw that the culture was inclusive and staff told us they felt valued and respected. Relationships between staff of all grades were positive, with strong teamwork and collaboration. Staff felt motivated about the future and planned changes for the service.

The service had leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders usually had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty and understood the impact their behaviours and leadership had on patient outcomes and experience.

Leaders had the experience, skills and knowledge required to run the service and demonstrated a clear understanding of the priorities and challenges it faced. Leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. They allocated areas of work according to their skills, knowledge, and expertise, which supported the effective oversight and management of the service. We saw that leaders worked closely together while maintaining distinct roles and responsibilities aligned to their areas of expertise and professional backgrounds. Leaders were visible and approachable to staff and patients and remained actively involved in the day-to-day delivery of services, including undertaking clinical duties and supporting operational activities.

Staff told us they felt comfortable approaching leaders and were able to raise concerns when needed. Leaders demonstrated an understanding of the risks facing the service and had systems in place to monitor and manage these. They maintained risk logs and regularly reviewed incidents to identify learning and opportunities for improvement. Risks, incidents, and associated actions were discussed as part of quarterly governance meetings to support ongoing oversight of the service.

The service fostered a generally positive culture where patients felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and offer ideas; the culture allowed staff to be confident their voices were heard.

Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns and said they would be supported to do so without fear of detriment. Leaders told us concerns would be investigated sensitively and confidentially when raised. At the time of our assessment, we were unable to provide examples of this process in practice. However, when speaking to staff we found no examples of staff needing to speak up. Risk registers and management reports included analysis of concerns over time and associated action plans. Leaders reviewed this information quarterly through governance meetings and discussed emerging issues through established service communication channels.

Due to the nature of the service, staff worked closely with patients on an individual basis, providing opportunities for people to raise any concerns directly during their interaction with the service. Staff were encouraged to respond promptly to concerns and seek local resolution wherever possible. The service promoted feedback from people using the service and had established policies and procedures to support the formal management of complaints when required.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. Staff work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for everyone.
The service promoted a culture of equality, inclusion, and respect. Due to the small size of the organisation, leaders maintained regular contact with staff and contractors and fostered an open working environment. Staff told us they felt treated fairly and would feel confident raising concerns about behaviours or attitudes that were inconsistent with the service's values.

The service had policies in place to support equality, diversity, and inclusion and to prevent bullying and harassment. Leaders told us they considered the individual needs of staff when making decisions and would make reasonable adjustments where required. At the time of our inspection, there were no staff who had disclosed a disability; however, leaders were able to describe how adjustments would be considered and implemented to support staff to undertake their roles.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Staff used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care,

treatment and support. Staff act on information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this with others when appropriate.

The service operated effective governance processes through various committees and on- site activities. For example, policies and procedures were monitored through quarterly meetings. There was a range of information collected, monitored and communicated internally. Performance data was analysed and where improvements were needed at the location level, actions were taken to make this happen. If there were any concerns about performance, there were processes to follow and if necessary, information would be shared with professional bodies such as the NHS as required. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities. Staff had job descriptions, and these set out expectations and responsibilities. Where the leadership team had designated tasks related to audit and monitoring quality of services, they understood what was required of them.

Staff had access to data they needed, in easily accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. Data or notifications were consistently submitted to external organisations as required. Leaders ensured key information was communicated to staff in a timely manner. For example, service updates, operational information and governance matters were shared through one-to-one conversations, team meetings, and communication channels, enabling information to be discussed openly and consistently across the workforce.

Risks were clearly identified and a formal log of these was used to keep oversight and manage mitigations and/or bring to resolution. Staff contributed to decision-making either in person or through a messaging group to help improve sustainability and improve quality of care.

Audit processes and the outcomes were used to ensure quality of services was maximised. Where improvements were required, leaders ensured action plans and the monitoring of these led to positive changes. 

The service had not reported any data breaches and systems were secure. Patient identifiable information was handled correctly. For example, reports were written electronically and stored on a password-protected system that only authorised clinicians could access.

We reviewed several service level policies and found these were up to date and readily available to staff. There was leadership oversight of the accuracy and validity of each policy.

The service had a business continuity plan which would be put into operation in the event of an unexpected disruption to the service. This included a short-term disruption plan or finding other organisations to conduct scans. 

The current CQC rating was not displayed on the provider's website at the time of inspection. This did not align with the requirement for providers to display their CQC rating in a clear and conspicuous manner on websites where they describe their service. However, the CQC ratings widget was now displayed on their website, after the provider actioned issues regarding updating their website through a third party.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for patients. Staff share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff and leaders collaborated with relevant external stakeholders and agencies to improve care and treatment for patients using the service. For example, the NHS and the local authority. The service worked in conjunction with both ensuring patients that needed urgent appointments were seen and to be able to streamline their service.  

Leaders engaged with professional stakeholders to understand the needs of the local community and identify opportunities to develop the service. Leaders told us they established the service in response to an identified gap in provision and continued to assess opportunities for new treatments and diagnostic techniques based on identified population and service needs.

This helped ensure the service remained responsive to the needs of people using it and informed future service development. Leaders and staff actively sought opportunities to engage with relevant external partners to support learning and improvement.

Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Staff encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for patients. Staff actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service was strongly committed to continually learning and improving services. There were processes for learning when things went wrong or of good practice, either locally or nationally. 

Leaders demonstrated a good understanding of quality improvement and described several initiatives they had implemented to enhance the service. These included introducing new diagnostic equipment and making changes to day-to-day operations in response to patient and staff feedback.

Staff were supported to have the time to develop their skills around improvement and innovation and to pursue areas of interest in the service. Leaders encouraged innovation and participation in research, and we heard about how the service was being involved in leading research and trailing new equipment. Staff and leaders were committed to excellence that centred on patient experience.

The service had been developing the use of a non-invasive Holter monitoring device for patients requiring monitoring of hereditary cardiac conditions. This technology provided an alternative to the traditional approach of implanting a monitoring device, reducing the need for an invasive surgical procedure and the associated risks and recovery time for patients. Staff told us the initiative had the potential to improve the patient experience by offering a less intrusive method of long-term monitoring. Leaders were also engaging with insurance providers to support wider adoption of this technology, with the aim of establishing it as a standard approach where clinically appropriate.