• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

AECC University College

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

13 - 15 Parkwood Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH5 2DF (01202) 436200

Provided and run by:
AECC University College

All Inspections

05 May 2022 & 10 May 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of AECC University College on 5 and 10 May 2022. This service was last inspected in February 2014. At that inspection the service was not rated but was compliant with the relevant regulations.

AECC University College provided diagnostic imaging.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we had about the location, including information we received and available intelligence. The inspection was unannounced.

We rated safe and responsive and well-led as requires improvement and caring as good. We do not rate effective in diagnostic imaging services.

Our overall rating of this location is requires improvement because:

  • Staff did not receive all of the training they needed to keep patients safe. Staff did not receive training that would enable them to support people who lacked capacity to make decisions about their care. Chaperones did not receive chaperone training.
  • The service did not always control infection risk well. There were no clinical handwashing sinks in the ultrasound rooms. There were no cleaning checklists in the toilets or staff kitchen.
  • Managers did not always make sure staff were competent to operate equipment. There was no record of staff competencies so we could not tell if staff had been trained to use equipment.
  • The service did not have communication tools to support patients with communication needs. Staff used relatives to interpret on their behalf instead of using trained, impartial, interpreters.
  • Leaders did not have all of the skills required to run the service well.


  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff mostly had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available to suit patients' needs.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their treatment. They provided emotional support to patients, and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

14 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This unannounced inspection was to follow up on compliance actions set at the previous inspection in November 2012. These compliance actions were set because the provider did not have systems in place to ensure that people's consent was sought prior to receiving treatment. We also found that there were not effective systems in place to enable people to raise a comment, concern or complaint about the service.

At this inspection we spoke with three people and five members of staff including the manager.

People told us the service was 'very professional', 'Prompt and very good', and 'Very good at explaining to me'.

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We found that there was an effective complaints system in place. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

14 November 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection we spoke with three members of the clinical team, senior managers; receptionists in both clinics and the administrator. Everyone we spoke with was helpful and enthusiastic about the service the college provided and conducted themselves in a professional and confident manner. We were told that they were able to provide adequate clinical and support staff to cover the clinics and arrangements were in place to cover for sickness or absence.

Everyone having diagnostic and screening procedures at the Anglo European College of Chiropractic was required to sign a consent form and we discussed with staff the process for obtaining consent. The clinical staff we asked were unable to describe how they would assess the capacity of people using the service to give consent to the procedures provided in the clinics. We looked at the information available to people and observed it did not always clearly identify the risks.

All members of staff we spoke to were unclear about the complaints procedure and how the college investigated and managed complaints. One information leaflet was posted in the Clinic for Ultrasound Studies. Staff were unable to provide any other written information for people using the service. The manager confirmed that there was no audit of complaints received and that they were not aware of the total number of complaints received by the clinics.

We observed that the diagnostic and screening equipment was maintained by the college.