The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Sidcup MRI

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Queen Mary's Hospital, Frognal Avenue, Sidcup, Kent, DA14 6LT (020) 8309 4720

Provided and run by:
Alliance Medical Limited

All Inspections

7th and 18th September 2018

During a routine inspection

Sidcup MRI is operated by Alliance Medical Limited. The service provides Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) diagnostic services for children and adults.

We inspected the MRI diagnostic facilities for children, young people and adults using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced part of the inspection on 07 September 2018 along with a follow up visit on 18 September 2018.

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.

The main service provided by this hospital was MRI scanning.

Services we rate

We rated it as good.

We found good practice in relation to diagnostic imaging:

  • There were effective systems in use to keep people protected from avoidable harm. Staff were provided with safety related training, including safeguarding vulnerable people. The staff had access to professional guidance, policies and procedures to support their work.
  • There were sufficient numbers of staff with the necessary skill, experience and qualifications to meet patients’ needs. Staff had access to additional development opportunities identified through their performance reviews.
  • Equipment was maintained and serviced in line with expectations and medicines were managed safely. The environment was suitable, accessible and visibly clean. Staff followed infection prevention and control practices.
  • Patient records and scans were complete, up to date and stored securely to avoid unauthorised access. Referral to scan times and scan to reporting times were within the agreed protocols and expected ranges.
  • The staff worked well with both internal and external colleagues to ensure the delivery of a responsive service. Appointments were available at times convenient to patients including evening, weekends and at short notice. Staff considered the individual needs of patients using the service and were kind and caring towards them, respecting their dignity and emotional needs.
  • The service had received only one complaint but acted on the feedback from patients and staff to constantly improve the service.
  • The senior team had the right skills and experience to lead. They were supportive and led by example. Staff understood the vision and values of the service and the culture was positive, with staff showing pride in their work. Performance outcomes and risks were monitored and acted upon. Staff recognised and valued the importance of learning and continuous improvement.

However, we also found the following issue that the service should seek to improve

  • The way the service maintained its mandatory training records did not reflect the level of completion of the staff who were actively working within the service.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London)

4 December 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our inspection on 04 December 2013, we followed up a compliance action that we had taken following our inspection on 19 November 2012. We found the provider had suitable arrangements in place to ensure people's safety and welfare. This included documenting and reviewing people's medical history and allergies before care and treatment was provided. One person we spoke with told us staff were 'really good', and confirmed staff discussed with them their medical history before planned treatment. Another person and their relative told us they were happy with the treatment and care they had received.

19 November 2012

During a routine inspection

Our inspection on 19 November 2012 to Sidcup MRI followed up concerns raised at our inspection on 10 February 2012 which included ensuring staff knew about safety alerts and there was appropriate staff support and training. We also checked whether the provider's equipment was safe, and if had adequate safeguarding and consent procedures were in place.

People who used the service told us they were given adequate information prior to their scan and that staff were thorough in checking their medical history. People told us they had given their consent and were happy with the arrangements for this. People told us staff were courteous and polite and were reassuring if they were nervous.

We found the consent practice at the unit followed the provider's policy and suitable arrangements were in place for people who lacked capacity to consent. People's medical background was checked and the provider had suitable arrangements in place to deal with any emergencies. However, the provider's safety screening form did not document if if people had any allergies. Staff knew about the signs of abuse relating to vulnerable adults and children and how to report any concerns.

The provider had adequate arrangements in place to ensure the equipment at the unit was regularly serviced and maintained. In addition the provider carried out its own checks. We found improvements had been made to the way in which staff were supervised and we saw staff were up to date with staff training.

17 February 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with said that they felt fully informed about having a scan. They said that they had been given information beforehand about the procedure and the risks involved with the scan. They said that there were appropriate arrangements in place to protect their privacy and dignity and that staff had facilitated this.

People said that staff were caring towards them. They felt fully informed about the procedure and the risks involved. One person said that they 'felt well treated', whilst another said that they were 'satisfied' and that staff were 'polite'.

However, on our inspection we found that people were treated by staff who were not always supported sufficiently or up to date with mandatory training.