Hartlepool MRI Unit

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 patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patient care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring patients 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Staff paid attention to patient comfort throughout the procedures.

Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment so that they could give informed consent.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

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

Staff assessed patients’ needs. Scans were planned and delivered in line with evidence-based guidance, standards and best practice. The service had an MRI operational procedure and local safety rules. We found these were in date and reflected best practice.

The service had local MRI protocols which had been approved for different pathways which were in date and easily accessible for staff.

Staff assisted patients into comfortable positions for imaging wherever possible. Patients were given headphones, earmuffs, eye masks and a pad under their knees to relieve pressure on the lumbar spine. Patients had access to drinking water as needed or required. There was a water dispenser for patient use.

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

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high-quality care according to best practice and national guidance. We looked at 19 policies, and all were in-date with review dates and version control tables. They all contained clear references to national guidelines.

We reviewed 5 patient records for evidence of completion of risk assessments and found that risk assessments for renal impairment, MRI contraindications, mobility, spinal cord compression and contrast allergy were completed in all cases where appropriate.

The service did not report to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN) intelligence database. However, they had their own reporting system for organisation-wide learning and also reported through the local trust system. All patient safety incidents were reported via Learning from Patient Safety Events (LFPSE), which is the system that the NHS uses to report safety events.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Radiographers, radiologists and other professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

Staff reported healthy working relations across staff groups. We saw and heard examples of effective team working which was based on mutual respect and trust.

Staff worked across health care disciplines and with other agencies when required to care for patients. For example, we heard how staff worked with radiologists in the local trust to audit reports on a monthly basis. We heard from stakeholders that the provider was represented at trust directorate meetings to provide clarity and representation when discussing clinical and financial goals. The service also worked with a university in the region to provide training for assistant practitioners.

Radiography staff worked closely with the referrers to enable patients to have a prompt diagnosis and treatment pathway. If they identified concerns from scans, they escalated them to the referrer. This ensured staff could share necessary information about the patients and provide holistic care.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

The service had information leaflets available on the website and in the department, which gave patients information about what to expect from their MRI scan. Leaflets also covered topics such as infection prevention and control and how patient information was collected, used and stored.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff monitored the effectiveness of care through audit. The service used the findings to make improvements and achieve good outcomes for patients, as well as to promote staff competence and learning. Radiographers who were new to reporting had 50% of their reports audited for the first 3 months, and then 10% of all reports were audited each month across the service. We saw examples of these audits for 3 members of staff. Monthly health and safety audits and infection prevention and control audits were also conducted. External agencies audited the service for medical physics safety and quality, and information security. Staff told us that audit results were shared at team meetings.

The provider demonstrated its commitment to evidence-based practice by maintaining imaging services accreditation through the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to BS7000:2017. The provider also had ISO 27001 accreditation, which is an internationally recognised standard for information security management systems.

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

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent. Staff knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff followed the service’s policies related to consent, mental capacity, deprivation of liberty and restrictive practice, as relevant. If a patient was unable to give consent, staff told us that they would ask the referrer to make a best interests decision and would not scan the patient without this.

We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care. People were involved in decision making at all levels.

Staff told us that patients could request same sex staff in advance of the scan, and this was respected and provided wherever possible. Patients could also request a chaperone if required.

The service had access to interpreters if required to help a patient give informed consent. Staff told us that interpreters were usually booked in advance and were face to face, but if it was not possible to book in advance, telephone interpreters could be provided if necessary.

The service had a consent policy, which was up-to-date and referenced how staff should seek consent from young people under the age of 18 years of age.

We saw information leaflets that patients were given before attending for a scan, which explained what to expect at the appointment and how to prepare. Patients were also given a safety questionnaire to complete before their appointment, and they were given the opportunity to ask questions before signing their consent form.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and knew where to access the current policies.