You are here

SG Radiology and Associates Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 April 2019

SG Radiology Associates Ltd is operated by SG Radiology Associates Ltd.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short notice announced inspection on the 5 and 6 February 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

We rated this service as Good overall.

We found good practice in relation to:

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

  • Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and when to contact other agencies to do so.

  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.

  • Staff completed risk assessments for each patient.

  • 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

  • The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness, monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to improve them.

  • The service made sure staff were competent for their roles and staff worked together as a team to benefit patients.

  • Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in relation to informed consent.

  • Staff cared for patients with compassion and provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness.

  • Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.

  • The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people.

  • The service took account of patients’ individual needs and 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 investigated incidents and complaints, learned lessons from the results, and shared these with all staff.

  • The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and workable plans to turn it into action.

  • Managers across the service promoted 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 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 service was committed to improving services.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • We did not see any evidence that staff hand hygiene or cleanliness of the mobile units was audited.

  • The service did not have a system in place for receiving and cascading medical device alerts or patient safety alerts from the Central Alerting System to staff.

  • There were indications that there may be some under-reporting of incidents which meant there were missed opportunities for learning and improvement.

  • Local Rules were not available for staff reference at the point of care.

  • The service did not have a consistent process of their own for dealing with language needs as they could access interpreting services when situated at a hospital site but not when at a community site.

  • Although the service identified risks well, planned to eliminate or reduce them, and cope with both the expected and unexpected, there was not a framework around this to help with consistent management, documentation of mitigations or easy oversight and review.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Ellen Armistead

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North Region)

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 April 2019

Are services safe?

We rated safe as Good because:

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.
  • Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and when to contact other agencies to do so.
  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.
  • Staff completed risk assessments for each patient.
  • 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
  • Records were kept safely and securely.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • We did not see any evidence that staff hand hygiene or cleanliness of the mobile units was audited.
  • The service did not have a system in place for receiving and cascading medical device alerts or patient safety alerts from the Central Alerting System to staff.
  • There were indications that there may be under-reporting of incidents which meant there were missed opportunities for learning and improvement.

Effective

Updated 12 April 2019

Caring

Good

Updated 12 April 2019

We rated caring as Good because:

  • Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness.
  • Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress.
  • Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 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, and shared these with all staff.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • The service did not have a consistent process of their own for dealing with language needs as they could access interpreting services when situated at a hospital site but not when at a community site.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 April 2019

We rated well-led as Good because:

  • Managers had the right skills and abilities to run the service providing high-quality sustainable care.

  • The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and workable plans to turn it into action.

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

  • The service was continually looking for ways to improve service quality and standards of care.

  • The service collected, analysed, managed and used information well to support 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 service was committed to improving services.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • Although the service identified risks well, planned to eliminate or reduce them, there was not a systematic process for consistent management, oversight and review.

Checks on specific services

Diagnostic imaging

Good

Updated 12 April 2019

We rated this service as good overall with ratings of good for safe, caring, responsive and well-led. CQC does not rate effective for diagnostic imaging services. There were areas of good practice and a small number of things the provider should do to improve.

Details are at the end of the report.