The Newcastle Clinic

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 assessed all 6 quality statements from this key question for the service. This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes and was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to good governance in that it did not have effective processes setting out how they assessed, monitored, and where required, improved the quality and safety of their service.

This service scored 50 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Professionals with a General Medical Council (GMC) or equivalent registration were permitted to refer patients to the service. Radiologists reviewed each referral and then protocoled the scan based on the patient’s needs, medical history, and presenting problems.

Staff were skilled in assessing holistic needs and worked with patients to adapt the service. For example, they recognised the risk of claustrophobia in the open MRI scanner and offered patients support to minimise discomfort.

Staff worked to adapt the service by offering extended access times and giving patients a tour of the equipment before their scan day.

People told us the staff at the clinic reviewed and discussed their needs and preferences on the day of their appointment and kept them up to date with their care and treatment.

We looked at the patient records for 3 people who used the service. All the records were well structured, legible and up to date. The records included clinical details, medical history, prescribed medicines history, allergies, mobility, contact names for next of kin and other healthcare professionals (such as their referrer). However, we identified gaps in patient records with regards to the recording of contrast medium administered.

The service did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Policies, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and training were not always based on up-to-date guidance from professional bodies including the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) and the College of Radiography.

There was not a clear process for reviewing policies and not all policies we reviewed were in date. Bank staff could not access the latest versions of policies and SOPs on the services computer system.

Staff and leaders told us that clinical audits had not been undertaken in the previous 12 months.

Staff and leaders told us that there was no process to regularly review National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.

Leaders told us the service was not signed up to receive patient safety alerts, or other important public health messages, other safety critical information and guidance from the Central Alerting System. This meant they were not consistently aware of new information that would support the delivery of evidence-based practice.

The service did not report to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN) intelligence database.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people.

People who used the service told us they felt involved in the planning of their care. They had received information explaining their procedures and what to expect throughout their appointments with the service. They spoke positively about the professionalism of the team.

Clinical and non-clinical staff told us the team worked well together to provide care and treatment for patients.

Referrals for imaging were only allowed from authorised professionals. Images were reported remotely by radiologists via a secure online portal.

Staff told us they had a good relationship with visiting consultants. They told us that they did not encounter any issues with accessing medical advice when required.

Feedback from stakeholders, such as the partnering NHS hospitals was positive. They told us they worked very well together to ensure effective care pathways.

The service did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The imaging team provided a diagnostics service and treatment plans were led by the patients referring medical professionals. As such there was limited scope for staff to provide health promotion interventions or advice.

We did not see any information at the service promoting healthy lifestyles but there were generic health promotion literature in the shared waiting area.

People who used the service told us they were provided with information relevant to their clinical appointment scans and results.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service did not identify specific key performance indicators and therefore did not have a system of monitoring performance. Staff and leaders told us they did not audit outcome measures.

Staff told us there were no mechanisms in place for peer review of images.

The service did not have a formal audit plan, and no clinical audits had been undertaken for over 12 months.

The service was not part of any formal accreditation scheme.

People who used the service said they felt listened to and were involved in discussions about their care and treatment. People spoke positively about the quality of the care and treatment they received.

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

The service had a consent policy in place and included a discussion of each patient’s medical history so that staff could identify risks or barriers to treatment. For example, some scans could not be carried out if a patient had certain implants and or medical devices such as pacemakers.

We saw the consent process in practice during our onsite assessment. Staff gave patients time and space to ask questions and made sure they fully understood their planned imaging scans before proceeding.

People who used the service told us they received information about care and treatment in a way they understood and had appropriate support and time to make decisions.

Staff and leaders told us that they did not monitor and audit the recording of consent, however all patient medical records we reviewed had consent clearly recorded.