• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Sheffield PET/CT Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S5 7AU (0114) 271 5917

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 Sheffield 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 Sheffield PET/CT Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

28 May 2019

During a routine inspection

Sheffield PET CT Centre is operated by Alliance Medical. The centre facilities include; reception and waiting area; an administrative area, which includes a reporting office, and a clinical area. The clinical area includes one scanner room, control room, dispensing laboratory, three uptake rooms and a changing room for patients, as well as male, female and accessible hot toilets (only to be used by patients who had their received radioactive injection).

The service provides diagnostic imaging using PET-CT equipment. A PET-CT scan is a combination of a PET (positive emissions tomography) scan and a CT (computerised tomography) scan. PET-CT scans are usually performed to help with the diagnosis, assessment and treatment of; cancer, heart and circulatory conditions and neurological (brain) abnormalities. The service can also provide CT scan only. The service carries out around 2800 scans per year.

The service saw adults and children as NHS patients as well as self-funded adult patients.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced visit on 28 May 2019 and telephone interviews with patients on 5 June 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.

This was our first rating of this service. We rated it as Good overall.

We rated safe, caring, responsive and well-led as good. We do not rate effectiveness of diagnostic imaging services; however our findings are included in this report.

We found good practice in relation to diagnostic imaging services at this location:

  • The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.
  • Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness. Patients told us all staff were helpful and understanding, informative, polite, reassuring and explained things well.
  • Staff assessed and managed risks and kept clear records of patients’ care and treatment.
  • Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and all staff (technologists, clinical assistants, manager) had completed level 2 training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and level 3 safeguarding children.
  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well. Equipment and premises were visibly clean, and staff used control measures to prevent the spread of infection.
  • Staff of different kinds worked together as a team to benefit patients. The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.
  • People could access the service when they needed it. Waiting times from referral to scan were in line with good practice.
  • The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people and of the individual patient.
  • The service had managers with the right skills and abilities to run the service and staff described a positive culture where they were supported by their managers.
  • The service improved service quality and safeguarded high standards of care through systems which identified risks, plans to eliminate or reduce risks.
  • The service partnered with local organisations to plan and manage appropriate services and collaborated to deliver services effectively.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider should improve;.

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff, however not all staff had completed formal radiation safety training appropriate to their current role.
  • Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the team, although levels of harm were not clearly identified in a timely way.
  • Local dose reference levels were available for PET but not CT scans.
  • Local procedures did not refer to consent processes for children and young people, for example in relation to Gillick competency.
  • Two-person checks were not completed where staff administer radiopharmaceuticals, in line with best practice, although this was in line with company policy.
  • Staff felt leadership was not always visible at this location. Maintaining detailed management oversight of the service was sometimes a challenge.
  • The service recognised there were opportunities to strengthen patient engagement.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North of England)

21 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a scheduled inspection of the Sheffield PET Centre on 5 January 2014. During this inspection we found the provider was not compliant with outcome 16 which is 'Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision'. We therefore gave them a compliance action to make sure this area was addressed.

The provider responded by returning an action plan explaining how they had made changes and that they would be compliant by 14 March 2013.

We inspected the service on 21 March to check the changes. The provider had a system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

People who used the service and their representatives had been asked for their comments about the service and we saw staff at the service had made changes.

We noted results of the staff surveys and minutes of staff meetings were available for staff which meant that staff felt included in the running of the service and listened to by the provider.

There was evidence that learning from incidents / investigations took place and the provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. .

24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with two patients who attended the centre and the staff on duty. We also checked various records including information on treatment of patients, staff recruitment and training.

Patients we spoke with said, before they agreed to any investigation they were asked for their consent by the doctor who was requesting for the procedure. Patients said the doctor acted in accordance with their wishes and they were fully informed of the procedure. One patient said, 'The consultant explained everything to me. He was very frank. I was told that I would be attending this centre for the test and then I will be returning to him after a few days for the results.' Another patient said, 'I was referred to this centre by the consultant who I saw through my GP. The consultant told me what they were suspecting. He was very upfront about it. I agreed to have this scan.'

Patients said the environment was pleasant and clean. There were clear procedures for the staff to follow to ensure the risk of infection was minimised.

Patients had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on, without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint. Patients who spoke with us said staff asked them for their comments about the service. They said they did not feel the need to complain since everybody they came into contact in the centre was helpful and good.

3 January 2014

During a routine inspection

This is a scanning centre therefore patients' needs were assessed and investigations were requested by the referring doctors. Staff from the Patient Management Centre (PMC) for Alliance Medical Limited organised the clinic appointments and informed the staff at the Sheffield PET centre. To ensure we meet patients we contacted the cetre in advace to decide on the date of inspection.

Staff made sure patients had read and understood the procedure by going through it when they arrive at the centre. Since staff were not familiar with the patients they took extra care by going through patients' details and other relevant information. We noted staff explaining after care following investigation and giving them leaflets with the explanation to take with them.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to obtaining medicine. The manager explained that injections used for scanning were organised and delivered as and when they were needed by PMC.

Patients were safe because, equipment provided and used as part of the scanning activity was installed and maintained by the manufacturers and the provider ensured it complied with relevant legislation.

The provider may find it useful to note that the company policy was not clear on staff supervision and staff at the Sheffield PET centre did not receive formal supervision.

The provider did not effectively monitor the quality of service and take appropriate action.

3 October 2011

During a routine inspection

One patient was spoken with about their experience in the unit and 'patient satisfaction surveys' for the last two months were seen. Patients said they found the experience to be better than they thought it would be, that staff were professional, kind and informative. They felt that overall the unit provided an excellent professional and caring service.