Archived: HeartScan Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that people were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways which met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

The service had clear pathways for diagnostic and screening procedures. Services were tailored to meet the needs of individual people and delivered in a way to ensure choice and continuity of care, which met the needs of patients.

The shared waiting area had comfortable seating for patients and toilet facilities. There was a selection of magazines in the shared waiting area, and we found mobile telephone signal was sufficient to allow browsing on private devices if people brought these in.

Staff ensured privacy for patients to change into a gown if required.

The service told people all planned and possible costs and payment methods in advance of them signing their agreement. Fee information was also available on the service’s website.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the needs of people and their local communities, so care was flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service understood the local population demographic and the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities.

The service informed patients of terms and conditions prior to them signing their agreement and they were able to cancel up to the day before the appointment if required.

The service audited clinic waiting times and shared the results with staff. The most recent audit (October 2025 to January 2026) showed all patients were seen on time or within 10 minutes of their allocated appointment time.

Patients were asked how they would like to receive their results. Patients received their test results 3 to 5 days after their procedure. Where patients had self-referred, the clinic obtained consent to share information with the patient’s GP. If sent via the post, patients were given the option of recorded delivery. Any reports sent electronically outside of the secure IT system were sent via a secure encrypted email system.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients received verbal and written information about their tests, reasons for consent and when their results would be available. Although none of the patient information was readily available in other languages, the service had access to an online document translation service if required.

The service’s website was easy to read and navigate. It was easy to book an appointment. Website information included how to find the clinic, parking, terms and conditions/consent, procedure information leaflets (these were also available in reception), costs, a contact form and numbers for patients to give feedback, and complaints information.

However, the website required updating as it stated a female cardiologist was available, although there were none that worked at the service. It also suggested the previous director was still active within the business, which was incorrect. We discussed this with the registered manager at the time, and they confirmed the website was to be refreshed late 2026/27, to include appropriate health promotion material relevant to cardiac screening.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for people to raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, it was easy for people to share feedback and ideas.

The service had a complaints policy and an associated patient leaflet which explained how to complain. However, information in the 2 documents was contradictory and incorrect. For example, the leaflet advised complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days and investigated within 10 working days, whereas the policy stated 2 days and 30 working days respectively.

If the complainant remained dissatisfied, the leaflet signposted them to a charitable organisation. However, both web links were incorrect for that organisation. In addition, it signposted people to contact CQC with any concerns regarding care. This is incorrect. CQC does not have legal powers to complain or take up complaints on behalf of patients or their carers.

The policy however, signposted to the Independent Complaints Advocacy Service (ICAS), and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and Local Government Ombudsman. None were referenced in the patient leaflet, and we found the service was not listed on the ISCAS register.

The service’s website did not have details about the complaints process but advised people to contact the registered manager, with a link to a form. This meant there was no objective point of escalation for complainants, and they potentially had to complain to the person who delivered their care.

Although the service had not had any formal complaints, it was unclear how the provider was assured all staff would know what do. For example, the policy stated staff received mandatory training on complaints handling on the staff induction course. However, this was not a mandatory requirement in the training policy or the training matrix and there were no induction documents in staff files to confirm staff had received the training.

However, the service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. For example, all patients received questionnaire forms following their appointment to enable them to share their experience and ideas for any improvements. All returned forms we saw were very positive about the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service usually made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service operated from the clinic on Tuesday afternoons only. The registered manager explained several patients requested more dates for clinic appointments if possible. Although the service had trialled Saturday clinic appointments as well as Tuesdays for increased appointment availability times, the provider had reviewed the trial and decided this was not currently sustainable. However, it was a consideration for the future.

The property had steps up to the front door, which meant the service was not always easily accessible for some wheelchair users. However, mobility needs were discussed with patients during pre-assessment; there was a handrail at the steps up to the front door and staff offered help if required.

People accessed the service by appointment only, and appointments were of sufficient length to ensure patients did not feel rushed. Patients we spoke with confirmed this.

Patients were mostly self-funded through insurance or self-paying and fees information was available on the service’s website.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service was proactively working to address health inequalities in their region and to improve experiences and outcomes in groups most likely to experience health inequalities. However, the service could not demonstrate all staff received equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights training.

Staff were aware of the local population demographic and knew about the potential for health inequalities. The registered manager explained how the service was focused upon increased engagement of self and GP-referred patients, particularly women, minority and underrepresented groups, as they were considered poor at seeking cardiac care.

The service was working to drive awareness of cardiac screening and heart health promotion in the Northeast, though partnership working.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service and the registered manager made sure staff, and patients, could get help from real-time telephone interpreters or scheduled onsite interpreters if needed.

The service audited patient satisfaction surveys and experience and outcomes were positive.

The service had an equality and diversity policy, which mandated equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights training. However, training records we received showed most staff had not completed it.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.