You are here

Medical Imaging Partnership Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 17 July 2019

During a routine inspection

Medical Imaging Partnership (MIP) has provided a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning service since 2010 at Crawley hospital. In 2019 MIP has one relocatable scanner at Crawley Hospital, West Sussex.

In addition, a mobile ultrasound service is provided at the Vale Medical Centre, Haywards Heath. The ultrasound scans are performed by a consultant radiologist who holds practising privileges with MIP.

The mobile services provided by MIP at Crawley and at the Vale involve diagnostic assessment of patients referred under contracts with local NHS trusts, a local social enterprise organisation and a local pathway for musculoskeletal patients from Central Sussex, private patients both insured and self-pay.

The mobile services are managed from the MIP Head Office in Pease Pottage. This site also hosts the Referral Management Centre, Picture Archiving and Communication System and the logistics department which oversees radiology reporting, logistics and scheduling.

At the time of inspection, only the relocatable scanner at Crawley was in use. The mobile MRI scanner (MIP02) was not in use by MIP. It had been leased out and the plan was that the relocatable scanner would be returned and in place at the Crawley site later in 2019.

We inspected the service under our independent single speciality diagnostic imaging framework, using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection on 17 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.

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

Services we rate

We rated this service as Good overall.

We found good practice in relation to diagnostic imaging:

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff.

  • Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.

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

  • Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient.

  • 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 kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment.

  • The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.

  • Staff assessed and monitored patients regularly to see if they were in pain.

  • Managers monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to improve them.

  • The service made sure staff were competent for their roles.

  • Staff of different kinds worked together as a team to benefit patients.

  • Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect. The interactions we observed showed staff being professional and compassionate. We heard staff speak to patients in a friendly yet professional manner.

  • Referrals were responded to rapidly. Patients could be offered immediate appointments in case of an emergency.

  • Timely reporting was monitored and facilitated with information technology systems allowing results to pass quickly to referrers. Urgent or unexpected findings triggered an immediate process, ensuring results were seen promptly by consultants.

  • Corporate functions supported clinical activity at site level with policies, procedures, resources and effective communication cascaded to ensure that provision met objectives for patient care.

  • We found an open and candid approach to incident and complaint management. Staff we talked with understood their role to ensure duty of candour was routinely applied.

  • Managers across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.

We found areas of practice that required improvement:

  • Only 33% of staff had received infection prevention control training.

  • Staff were not aware of protected time arrangements to complete mandatory training.

  • Daily cleaning records were not signed and updated regularly.

  • Safety checks were not signed and updated regularly.

  • There were no hand sanitizers or hand washing sink for patients and visitors in the unit.

  • Equipment such as needles and syringes were kept on the premises despite not being necessary for the provided procedures.

  • Equipment on the unit did not always have a magnetic resonance (MR) safety label on them.

  • Of the 12 policies we reviewed 8 were outdated and in need of review.

  • The service was in the process of embedding a formalised staff annual appraisal programme. Although this programme was in place for the last four months not all members of staff had a designated date for their appraisal. Completion rates were below the expected standard of 100% completion.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals