Archived: HeartScan Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We assessed the levels of people’s privacy and dignity afforded to them. We asked patients to tell us about their experiences, if they were respected, if they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

Staff were attentive to people’s immediate needs. The service promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service could not demonstrate all staff used in the capacity of chaperones had received appropriate training. However, staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and their privacy and dignity were protected. Staff treated each other with kindness and respect.

Patients were able to request a chaperone, according to the service’s website. Limited chaperoning guidance for staff was in the service’s equality and diversity policy. However, the service could not demonstrate that all staff used in that capacity had received appropriate training.

We observed that staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with each other, patients and visitors were discreet, respectful and responsive.

Patients we spoke with told us staff made them feel relaxed and able to express their wishes and ask questions about their procedure and results.

We observed that staff greeted patients in the waiting area, introduced themselves and brought them to the clinical room. Staff accommodated patients who had arrived earlier than their appointment time quickly, so they did not have to wait.

Staff protected patients’ privacy and dignity when they needed to change into a disposable gown.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service could not demonstrate all staff had completed equality and diversity training. However, staff treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their individual needs and preferences.

The service had an equality and diversity policy. Equality and diversity training was not mandated in the service’s training policy, although it was on the training matrix provided which showed most staff were not up-to-date with it.

Patients we spoke with said the service was offered in a personalised way from the initial telephone contact to the appointment and then the personalised letter and report they received afterwards. This was also reflected in written feedback we saw.

Patients we spoke with told us staff introduced themselves and ensured they were comfortable prior to carrying out procedures. We observed patients being given verbal instructions before leaving the clinic to let them know when they could expect to receive their test results.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so they had choice and control over their own care and treatment.

Initial information captured at pre-assessment ensured staff had all the information they needed to promote patient independence, choice and control.

Staff we spoke with explained how they provided verbal reassurance throughout procedures. For those people demonstrating heightened anxiety, for example if they were worried about their cardiac health, staff provided choice and control and allowed people to bring someone with them.

Patients we spoke with told us they received right amount of information prior to attending the service and said they did not feel rushed.

The evidence showed a good standard. The staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff recognised and considered patients’ personal, social and emotional needs. Feedback we saw and heard from patients was that staff were reassuring and put them at ease.

Staff took time to explore and understand the motivation of patients seeking screening and understood why they wanted to be reassured about the health of their heart, for example, those with a known progressive heart condition.

Two patients we spoke with told us they felt the wait for NHS treatment was too long and this caused anxiety. Staff were aware of this information from the telephone assessment and used this knowledge to communicate in a way that was supportive of each patient’s individual needs, when they attended.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff we spoke with told us they were listened to, supported and felt valued. They said they were proud of the work they did and of the quality of service they provided. There was consistent constructive engagement between the registered manager and staff. Appraisals included conversations about how they could be supported in their job.

The registered manager and staff had sufficient rest breaks, and duty rotas were planned well in advance, to accommodate personal circumstances and preferences.