• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

InHealth MRI - Sandwell General Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Sandwell General Hospital, Lyndon, West Bromwich, West Midlands, B71 4HJ (0121) 507 2484

Provided and run by:
InHealth 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 InHealth MRI - Sandwell General Hospital 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 InHealth MRI - Sandwell General Hospital, you can give feedback on this service.

24 to 26 July 2019

During a routine inspection

Sandwell MRI Centre is operated by InHealth Limited. Facilities are solely diagnostic facilities.

The service provides for adults, children and young people. We inspected diagnostic imaging services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced visit on 24 July 2019 and returned announced on 26 July 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

This service had not been previously rated.

We rated it as Good overall.

We found good practice in relation to diagnostic imaging:

  • There were effective systems in place to keep people protected from avoidable harm and effective risk assessment arrangements.
  • There were sufficient numbers of staff with the necessary skills, experience and qualifications to meet patients’ needs.
  • There was a programme of mandatory training in key safety areas, which all staff completed, and systems for checking staff competencies.
  • Equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately, and the environment was visibly clean.
  • Staff were trained and understood what to do if a safeguarding issue was identified.
  • Records were up to date and complete and kept people protected from unauthorised access.
  • Incidents were reported, investigated and learning was implemented.
  • The service used evidence-based processes and best practice, this followed recognised protocols. Scans were timely, effective and reported on in good time.
  • Staff were competent in their field and kept up to date with their professional practice.
  • The service worked well with internal and external colleagues and partnership working was strong.
  • Staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach to their patients, supported their emotional needs and provided reassurance.
  • Appointments were available during the evening, weekends and at short notice if required.
  • The referral to scan times and scan to reporting times were appropriate and well within expected ranges.
  • The service had few complaints but acted upon feedback from patients and staff.
  • The service had supportive, competent managers who led by example. Staff understood and were invested in the vision and values of the organisation. The culture was positive and staff demonstrated pride in the work and the service provided.
  • Risks were identified, assessed and mitigated. Performance was monitored and data used to seek improvements for both staff and patients.
  • Engagement with staff, stakeholders and partners was a strong feature of the service.

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

  • The service should raise awareness of sepsis by displaying posters and providing information.
  • The service should develop an engagement strategy with its partners to include the public and equality groups.

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

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Midlands)

26 November 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with three radiographers, five people waiting for a scan and observed two people during their treatment. Following our visit we spoke with the manager.

All the people spoken with told us and we saw that staff respected people's privacy and dignity and that they were given choices about their care. One person told us, 'I was in and out staff were so good, very friendly, I felt comfortable'. Another person told us, 'I don't know what I was worried about they explained everything'.

People's health care needs were planned and met in a personalised way. All staff spoken with told us they had the information they needed to care for people safely. Records showed that people medical details were obtained before their scans. This meant staff had the information they needed to care for people safely.

The provider had effective infection control procedures. This meant the risk of infection for people using the service was minimised.

All staff spoken with told us they felt supported by the manager, and had regular training opportunities.This meant staff had the skills to care for people safely.

There were systems in place to monitor how the service was run, and action taken where feedback from the people using the service would improve the service provided to them.

14 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit, we spoke with the manager, radiographer and two staff. We spoke with four people who had a scan during our visit. Three people using the service consented to us following them through their treatment. All four people spoken with spoke positively of their experience and the care provided to them by the staff. We saw staff explaining the process to people throughout their treatment. One person told us, 'I was worried but the staff explained every thing to me'. This meant people were fully aware of what was going to happen during their treatment.

People were provided with full information about the procedures they were having before they attended the clinic. One person told us, 'I had the information before I came, the leaflet that came with my letter told me what would happen'. Staff ensured that consent to treatment was obtained.

The provider had clear procedures in place to identify and respond to suspicions of abuse to ensure people were protected against abuse.

Staff received a range of training so that they had up to date knowledge and skills in order to support people receiving a service.

The provider took steps to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and the information was used to improve the service if required.

27 September 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke with a number of patients throughout our visit and observed the care and support they received whilst at the centre.

All of the people we spoke with felt that the service they had received was very good. They told us that they had not waited long for an appointment and that the staff were friendly and pleasant. They told us that they felt their privacy and dignity was maintained during their time in the Centre.

They told us that the staff were friendly and polite and put them at ease. They also said that the staff explained the procedure and what would happen throughout the scan.