Heart Networks UK Limited - Christie Way

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that patients were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good

We found that the service provided safe care and treatment for patients, and that they were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The premises were well maintained, with processes in place to manage health and safety, this included fire safety and infection controls. We saw the provider had a positive learning culture and had in place processes for service improvement.

This service scored 75 (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 displayed a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness, honesty, and self-improvement. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. The provider had established processes to improve services based on learning, this included learning from significant events, complaints, audit findings, and patient feedback. The service had procedures for identifying, investigating and taking corrective actions to improve. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients support where appropriate. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others.

The service worked with patients, and when required other healthcare partners, to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients, and we saw that the service collected necessary patient safety information at the time of booking. This included details of patient's overall health status, potential safeguarding issues and any accessibility needs. The service routinely shares information with the patient’s own GP, If the service felt that they could not support the patient directly after assessing their needs, it sought to support them by providing advice and signposting to more appropriate services.

The service had procedures and measures in place to safeguard patients, and protect them from harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. They provided care to those over 18 years of age; however, staff were aware of children’s safeguarding needs should they accompany a patient visiting the service. All the staff who provided the services had undergone enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks and had undertaken safeguarding training appropriate to their roles. When we spoke to the provider, they were clear on how to recognise and raise a safeguarding concern. The provider had established processes to identify, record, and action safeguarding concerns. Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The service had nominated a safeguarding lead to oversee and manage safeguarding. Staff had received training in equalities, learning disability and autism awareness, and mental capacity. Where needed the service was able to arrange chaperones for patients.

The service worked with patients to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet patients' needs that was safe, supportive and enabled patients to do the things that mattered to them. They worked with patients to understand and manage risks spending time during consultations discussing with patients their needs and expectations and sought to build their care and treatment options around these. Emergency equipment was available and maintained. Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take. Staff had received required emergency training, which included basic life support training. Patients were advised on risks related to their condition, and actions to take if their condition deteriorated.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced clinicians, who had received effective support, supervision and development. We saw they worked together to provide safe care that met patient's individual needs. We found training was up to date, and the learning and development needs of staff had been managed appropriately, and they worked within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced clinicians, who had received effective support, supervision and development. We saw they worked together to provide safe care that met patient's individual needs. We found training was up to date, and the learning and development needs of staff had been managed appropriately, and they worked within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and had processes in place and the professional knowledge to share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly if required. The service had a designated infection, prevention and control lead, and all persons who delivered care had undertaken relevant training. We saw on the day of our assessment the consultation room and ancillary areas such as the waiting room and toilets were in a clean condition and were well maintained. Risk assessments and audits had been completed, and actions taken to mitigate infection prevention and control risks.

The service made sure treatments were safe and met patient's needs, capacities and preferences. They involved patients in planning, including when changes happened. Heart Networks do not directly prescribe medicines; there were no medicines held on the premises except for medicines to deal with a medical emergency and these were stored and managed correctly.