You are here

Horder Healthcare Seaford Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 April 2019

Medical Imaging Partnership (MIP) provides a diagnostic imaging service from Horder Healthcare Seaford.

The service has one X-ray room, consultation room and waiting area.

Horder Healthcare Seaford opened in September 2014 as a consulting and physiotherapy centre with an X-ray room to provide a one stop clinic with consultant orthopaedic surgeons. The diagnostic imaging service provided by Medical Imaging Partnership accepts patient referrals for X-ray under contracts with the Horder Centre, the Sussex musculoskeletal (MSK) service (a local pathway for MSK patients from East Sussex), and other private referrers.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 April 2019

We rated Safe as Good because:

  • There were systems and processes to ensure patients received safe care.
  • The service provided sufficient mandatory training to ensure staff could meet the needs of the service.
  • Staff were aware of their role in protecting patients from the risk of abuse. Staff reported concerns in line with national guidance.
  • The risks associated with the spread of health acquired infection were reduced because staff followed best practice.
  • There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure the service was delivered.
  • Patients had their individual needs risk assessed before a procedure.
  • We found systems and processes to ensure incidents were reported, learned from, and used to improve the service.

Effective

Updated 4 April 2019

Diagnostic imaging services are not currently rated in this domain.

  • We found audit processes monitored the image quality and suitability of the referrals against the Society of Radiographers best practice guidance. There was a clinical lead who had overall responsibility for the audit activity in the service.
  • Staff were competent to meet the needs of patients. They were provided with an annual appraisal and supported to learn and develop professionally.
  • There was a multi-disciplinary approach to service delivery.
  • Consent was obtained in line with the service guidelines.

However:

  • As a result of changes in IR(ME)R guidelines in 2017, there was an ongoing review of all policies and procedures to ensure guidelines were being adhered to. This meant that some policies we looked at still hadn’t been reviewed using these guidelines.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 April 2019

We rated caring as Good because:

  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect. Staff interactions were kind, caring and professional. They provided detailed information to patients and gave them enough time to ask questions about their planned procedures.
  • Patients were provided with emotional support by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 April 2019

We rated responsive as Good because:

  • The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people.
  • The service took account of patients’ individual needs.
  • People could access the service when they needed it. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with good practice.
  • The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results.

However:

  • The service could not always guarantee impartiality throughout the translation process because they could not always access external translators.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 April 2019

We rated well led as Good because:

  • Managers at all levels in the service had the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.
  • We saw a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.
  • The service collected, analysed, managed and used information well to support all its activities, using secure electronic systems with security safeguards.
  • The service engaged well with patients, staff, the public and local organisations to plan and manage appropriate services, and collaborated with partner organisations effectively.
  • The provider’s strategy was to ensure a safe, high quality sustainable service. The organisation had recently restructured involving individual consultation with staff to ensure its ability to offer best value to clients.

However:

  • The service could not assure themselves of the correct management of local risks. This was minimised by the use of a corporate risk management policy which supported the location.
Checks on specific services

Diagnostic imaging

Good

Updated 4 April 2019

Overall, the care provided by the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

  • Patients were happy with the care they received and found the staff to be caring and compassionate.
  • Staff were well trained and supported and worked according to agreed national guidance to ensure patients received the most appropriate care. There were sufficient staff, with appropriate skills and expertise to manage the service.
  • Patients were able to access the service at times that suited them and also had access to same day X-rays following consultation. Individual needs of patients were considered.
  • The service had clear leadership and governance both locally and within Medical Imaging Partnership.