During an assessment of Diagnostic and screening services
Date of assessment 9 to 17 April 2025. Phoenix Ultrasound provides diagnostic imaging services to private patients. The organisation currently operates from one site in Banstead, Surrey. The base is a GP practice, and Phoenix Ultrasound rents 2 rooms on the first floor. This location is the base for both administrative and clinical services. The clinic is open Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. The organisation has 2 sonographers, 2 administrative staff and 1 Registered Manager who is responsible for managing the regulated activities at the service. The provider also has access to a pool of self-employed sonographers who they call on if needed. Phoenix Ultrasound provides scanning services to adults from 18 years of age. It offers pregnancy and medical scans. The assessment was carried out in response to concerns and length of time since registration without an assessment. We found 6 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safeguarding, infection prevention and control, safe systems, pathways and transitions, safe and effective staffing, dignity and respect, and governance.
Our overall rating of this service is requires improvement.
Safe:
We found breaches of the legal regulation in relation to safeguarding, infection prevention and control, safe systems, pathways and transitions, and safe and effective staffing. There was not a clear understanding of how to protect people and keep them safe. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, but the environment was not always clean and well-maintained. Staff did not currently receive regular supervision and appraisals to maintain high-quality care. However, the service ensured staff were up to date with their training and received training relevant to their role. People could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents. Staff understood and managed risks. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience.
Effective:
We identified a breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. Staff reviewed assessments, taking account of people’s health needs, but not always their communication needs. Staff explained care and treatment to people to enable them to give informed consent but did not always explain the procedure whilst it was being performed. However, people were involved in assessments of their needs. Care was based on good practice.
Caring:
We found breaches of the legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect as staff did not consistently protect people’s privacy and dignity. However, people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.
Responsive:
The service did not always provide information in a way people could understand. However, people were involved in decisions about their care. The service displayed information on how to give feedback. They took feedback seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and tried to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment.
Well-led:
The service had worked hard to improve their governance; however, we still identified gaps in staff’s knowledge relating to governance. Leaders did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the regulations. We found breaches of the legal regulation in relation to governance. However, leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.