• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Leeds PET/CT Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Nuclear Medicine Department, Bexley Wing, St James Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS9 7TF (0113) 206 8326

Provided and run by:
Alliance Medical Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Leeds PET/CT Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Leeds PET/CT Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

4, 9 and 10 December 2019

During a routine inspection

Leeds PET-CT Centre is operated by Alliance Medical Limited. The service is based in a purpose-built facility within the nuclear medicine department of the Bexley Wing, St James University Hospital, Leeds.

PET-CT was a directly commissioned service within NHS England. The service has a service level agreement in place with the NHS Trust to deliver positron emission tomography (PET) scanning services to West Yorkshire via NHS England and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, taking referrals for some specialist scans from as far away as Scarborough. Adult and children attend the centre; however, only NHS based staff undertook scans on children.

Positron emission tomography–computed tomography, is known as PET-CT. This nuclear medicine technique combined, in a single gantry, a PET scanner and an x-ray computed tomography (CT) scanner. Sequential images were obtained from both devices in the same session, which were combined into a single superposed image. The scan used a special dye containing radioactive tracers. These tracers were injected into a vein in the arm dependant on what part of the body was being examined.

Service facilities included two hot labs, two scanning rooms, a control room, five injection rooms, a changing room and two hot toilets.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology and carried out an unannounced inspection on 4 December 2019. We also completed staff and patient telephone interviews on the 9 and 11 December 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

We rated the service as Good overall.

  • Managers had the right skills and abilities to run the service and staff described a positive culture where managers, staff and the multi-disciplinary team worked well together. The service ensured staff were competent with the right qualifications, skills and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers appraised staff’s work performance as a means of development.

  • Staff cared for patients with compassion, provided emotional support to minimise their distress and involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness.

  • Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Policies and procedures were implemented when a patient could not give consent.

  • The service systematically improved service quality and safeguarded high standards of care. Patient safety incidents were well managed, and staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Staff of different kinds worked together as a team to benefit patients.

  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.

  • The service collected, analysed, managed and used information well to support all its activities, using secure electronic systems with security safeguards.

  • The service planned and provided services that met and took account of the individual needs of local people. Care and treatment was based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness and managers checked that staff followed this guidance. Patients could access the service when they needed it, appointments were prioritised, and additional sessions had been put in place so that patients scans could take place in a timely way. Waiting times from referral to scan were in line with good practice.

  • The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them, learned lessons from the results, and shared these with all staff.

  • The service engaged well with patients, staff, the public and local organisations to plan and manage appropriate services and collaborated with partner organisations effectively.

    However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • None of the four eligible staff had completed level two children’s safeguarding training.

  • Daily resuscitation equipment checks did not always take place as identified by Alliance Medical Limited.

  • Planned maintenance of the defibrillator did not always take place.

  • The corporate business continuity plan was out of date.

  • Patients did not always sign and date their agreement in relation to the use of their images as a teaching aid.

  • Staff did not know how to access service specific information.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should and must make improvements, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford,

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)

30 January 2014

During a routine inspection

Due to the nature of the service provided and risks associated with radiation, we were not able to speak with people who used the service. However, we looked at satisfaction survey information that had been analysed by the care provider. This information showed a high degree of satisfaction with the service. People's comments included:

'(Names of staff) were fabulous, making special arrangements to help me have PET/CT scan.'

'Today was exceptionally good.'

We saw there were systems in place to make sure people's written consent was gained for the scanning procedures.

There were effective systems in place to make sure the unit was clean and appropriate procedures were in place to ensure all equipment used was clean and properly maintained.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff who had been properly recruited.

The Provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality and safety of service that people received.

11 January 2013

During a routine inspection

Due to the nature of the service provided and risks associated with radiation, we were not able to speak with people who used the service. However, we looked at satisfaction survey information that the care provider had analysed. This information showed a high degree of satisfaction with the service. One person said, 'The radiographer was excellent and did everything to reassure me and make the scan as stress free as possible.'

We saw that the clinic had systems in place to ensure the privacy and dignity of people who used the service. We saw people being attended to in a friendly and professional way. Staff showed a good understanding of the fears and anxieties that people who used the service may experience when undergoing their diagnostic procedure.

The care provider had policies and procedures in place to make sure the service was run safely.

Satisfaction survey information showed that people were satisfied with how staff at the service treated them. People who used the service had said that staff were professional and tidy in their appearance. We saw there were enough staff to ensure the service ran efficiently and with flexibility for people who used the service.

Staff we spoke with said they were confident the provider would deal with any concerns or comments promptly and take appropriate action where necessary.

2 November 2011

During a routine inspection

Due to the nature of the service provided and risks associated with radiation, we were not able to speak to people who use the service. However, we looked at satisfaction survey information that the care provider had analysed. Comments included:

'Very caring.'

'Staff very helpful and soon put me at ease.'

'Staff very helpful and pleasant.'

'I was immediately put at ease and reassurance given.'

'I thank you for all you have done for myself and my family.'

100% of people said they were satisfied with the staff and how they were dealt with.

96.7% of people said they thought the staff were professional and tidy.

92.9% of people had rated the service as an excellent service.

100% of people were satisfied with information provided on the service and proposed treatment.

One person had commented, when asked for suggestions on how the service could improve, 'Could not improve on what I experienced.'