You are here

Medical Imaging Dexa Scanning: Crawley Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 July 2019

Services we rate

We rated it as Good overall.

We found good and outstanding practice in relation to diagnostic imaging:

  • The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

  • Staff were all trained to level two in safeguarding and demonstrated knowledge of when a safeguarding referral may be needed.

  • The waiting room and clinical areas were visibly clean and tidy. The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.

  • The service had a robust process for reporting any unexpected findings such as suspected cancer. They kept clear records and asked for support when necessary.

  • Risk assessments were undertaken for each patient including radiation risks.

  • Staff told us how the incident reporting system worked and gave examples of learning from past incidents.

  • Policies and procedures used in the service followed evidence based practice and were developed in line with the health and care professions council (HCPC) standards of proficiency for radiographers.

  • Staff had the required qualifications, training and specialist experience. The professional qualifications of all relevant clinical staff were checked before they started work. We saw their professional membership status was monitored quarterly.

  • Consultants, radiographers and technicians had good relationships and staff said they would have no hesitation to ask for advice if they felt it was not needed.

  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect. We observed staff being professional and compassionate. We heard staff speak to patients in a friendly yet professional manner both in person and in telephone conversations.

  • Referrals were responded to rapidly. Patients could be offered immediate appointments if required.

  • The service was compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The premises catered to individual needs when reasonably possible.

  • Timely reporting was monitored, supported with IT systems allowing results to pass quickly to referrers. Urgent or unexpected findings triggered process, which ensured results were seen promptly by consultants.

  • The company had reviewed its values and refreshed them with staff involvement. Corporate functions aimed to support clinical activity at site level with policies, procedures, resources and effective communication cascaded to ensure that provision met objectives for patient care.

  • We found an open and candid approach to incident and complaint management. Staff we talked with understood their role to ensure an open and transparent approach was routinely applied.

  • Managers across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.

However; we also found areas of practice that require improvement;

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

  • The service had not concluded their review of all policies and procedures to ensure they are up to date and in line with best practice.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 July 2019

We rated Safe as Good because:

  • People were protected by a strong, comprehensive safety system, and a focus on openness, transparency and learning when things go wrong.

  • 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.

  • Staff numbers ensured the service was delivered safely and effectively.

  • Patients had their individual needs risk assessed before a procedure. Staff were able to discuss risk effectively with people using the service.

  • We found systems and processes to ensure incidents were reported, learned from, and used to improve the service.

Effective

Updated 5 July 2019

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 5 July 2019

We rated caring as Outstanding because:

  • Feedback from people who used the service, those who were close to them and stakeholders was continually and consistently positive about the way staff treated people. People thought that staff went the extra mile and their care and support exceeded their expectations. There was a true ethos of compassionate care in the service.

  • People’s emotional and social needs were as important as their physical needs. We heard and saw multiple examples of staff supporting patients through their journey, explaining procedures and taking into consideration individuals’ emotional needs.

  • People who used services and those close to them were active partners in their care. Staff were fully committed to working in partnership with all people involved in the patient’s care and making this a reality for each person.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 July 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 5 July 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 was yet to conclude their review of all policies and procedures to ensure they were up to date and in line with best practice.

Checks on specific services

Diagnostic imaging

Good

Updated 5 July 2019

The service provided care that was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. Patients were extremely happy with the care they received and found staff to be caring and compassionate. Staff took the time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate manner. Staff were encouraging, sensitive and supportive to patients and those close to them.

Staff were well trained and supported and worked according to agreed national guidance to ensure patients received the most effective care. There were sufficient staff, with the skills and expertise to manage the service.

Patients were able to access the service at times that suited them. Individual needs of patients were considered.

The service had clear leadership and governance both locally and at provider level at Medical Imaging Partnership.