Phoenix Ultrasound

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people’s needs were assessed to support the best possible outcomes for individuals. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good. We identified a breach of the legal regulations in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The clinic was held on the first floor of the building, accessible by a lift or stairs. Staff told us they were unable to accept wheelchair users or people with poor mobility as they could not be evacuated in the event of a fire. Currently, the website and terms conditions did not reflect this, but staff told us this would be amended shortly.

Staff did not access translation services for people whose first language was not English. They told us they either used an accompanying person who spoke English or a web-based translation tool. This was not best practice as the standard set by the RCR and British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS)is to use professional interpreters. The risk of using an accompanying person is the potential lack of inaccuracy or neutrality.

Patients could easily and quickly arrange an appointment. On the day of the of our visit 3 people had booked a same day appointment.

The service planned and delivered people's care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this generally in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff told us scans with significant findings would be written and sent immediately after the appointment. On the day of the inspection this did not happen when a scan identified significant concerns.

Written protocols in line with good practice guidance and standards were not always available. There was no protocol in place relating to referral pathways should there be an unexpected finding on a scan, with a reliance on patients who self-referred sharing their scans results with other professionals. We also observed occasions such as the checking of patient's identification, when guidance was not adhered to.

Ultrasound scans were carried out according to patients' needs and history. The sonographer extended scans to other relevant body parts when this was deemed necessary. For example, a patient who complained of a lump in their neck had an extended scan to include other relevant structures to aid diagnosis. Ultrasound reports were written at the end of the clinic day and sent to patients via email and password protected.

The service did not always work well across services to support people. Staff did not always share their assessment of people's needs when people moved between different services.

The service worked in isolation as an independent practice. They did not have an affiliation with any other service but liaised with referrers when required; for example, they shared scan reports with referring practitioners. In instances where patients self-referred, the service did not routinely share findings with other medical professionals unless the patient consented. Where patients gave consent, the sonographer shared their reports with other practitioners.

Most patients were seen for a one-off appointment and the service did not monitor their ongoing care and treatment. This was reasonable due to the nature of the business being a single-episode non-continuous diagnostic service.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

All patients were sent a standard consent form via email once they booked in for a scan using the online booking system. For patients requiring a TVS scan, a separate consent form was completed on site. TVS consent forms were stored in paper form at the clinic. Every clinic report contained a standard phrase stating informed consent was verbally obtained from the patient.

The sonographer asked each patient whether their ultrasound report could be shared with their GP. If a patient declined this, the sonographer recorded this within the patient record on the electronic patient record system. This was not recorded on the scan report.