• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Alliance Medical Manchester Airport

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Kingsley Hall, 20 Bailey Lane, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Lancashire, M90 4AN (0161) 493 9633

Provided and run by:
European Scanning Centre (Harley Street) Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 17 January 2022

European Scanning Centre Manchester is a private diagnostic imaging service and primarily services the communities of Manchester (with some national and international referrals). The service is owned and operated by European Scanning Centre (Harley Street) Limited (ESC Ltd), which is the registered provider with CQC. ESC Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alliance Medical Limited (AML), which was registered with the CQC in July 2015. The service offers appointments to private patients as well as serving some NHS patients under local commissioning arrangements and accepts patients on a referral basis.

The centre has had a registered manager in post since opening in 2015 and is registered for the following regulated activities

  • Diagnostic and screening procedures
  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The centre operates on the ground floor of a shared office building. European Scanning Centre Manchester provides magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scanning. Staff at the service included radiographers, administrators and radiologists working at the centre under practising privileges.

For the period January to October 2021, the scanning centre carried out;

  • 924 MRI imaging procedures
  • 58 Ultrasound imaging procedures

The imaging procedures were carried out for the following reasons during this period;

  • 282 scans on behalf of insurance companies
  • 539 on behalf of clinical referral
  • 167 following self-referrals

We have not previously inspected European Scanning Centre Manchester.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 17 January 2022

We rated it as good because:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it. The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well. Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient and kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment.

Staff provided good care to patients. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care. Key services were available with flexible times throughout the week.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients. Feedback from patients was extremely positive.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, 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 a diagnostic procedure.

Managers across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients.

However:

The service did not always control infection risk well. It had carpets in clinical areas despite the organisation identifying this infection control risk in an infection control audit in February 2021.

The service did not monitor the care and treatment it provided based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.

The service did not always operate effective governance processes. The service did not have effective processes in place to ensure policies were kept up to date, it did not have effective processes in place to monitor employment checks for clinicians working at service in line with the organisations own practicing privileges policy and the service did not have effective processes in place to risk assess patients and monitor their treatment outcomes who were being seen by visiting consultants under hosting arrangements.