InHealth Jarvis Breast Screening Centre

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 always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that 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. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained the same. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

Staff considered and respected the people’s dignity. Modesty sheets were provided for people to maintain as much dignity as possible whilst screening and assessments took place. Chaperones were provided to ensure that people were safe and felt comfortable. Policy ensured safety was prioritised and provided examples of people who may benefit from having a chaperone such as those with specific religious or cultural beliefs. Staff were aware all male clinicians were to have a chaperone present.

The team provided people with a private waiting area if a quiet space was needed. Staff were able to recognise when a person might require this space and were sure to provide dignified support and care. Feedback provided from people to the service reported they were treated with dignity and made them ‘feel comfortable and safe’. We reviewed people’s feedback from completed surveys and found the responses were very positive and complementary of the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff were able to follow the persons journey and support them. Some staff told us they had time to spend with the people which allowed them to build a rapport, whereas others said staff were getting less time to spend with people due to the busy clinics.

The provider’s policy encouraged staff to maintain good practice by using the relevant language to reflect the individual’s choice. This consideration for language was inclusive and respectful towards people, staff were aware of the Language Line service, which they could use to access an interpreter to facilitate understanding. The service partook in data collection as part of the NHS Breast Screening specifications. The service was mindful when asking people for specific information such as their ethnicity.

We observed staff being polite to people and speaking kindly.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff respected each person’s individual choice and adapted care to meet these needs where safe to do so. For example, staff were aware of the vulnerable position people could be in, therefore chaperones were offered for appointments. We were told many people declined a chaperone, but the choice was offered. The provider had a policy to support chaperone working. This process identified why chaperones may be required for different reasons, such as cultural or neurodiverse needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

For ultrasounds and stereotactic biopsy procedures (where a mammography machine was used to assist obtaining a sample) staff worked with a call system. This system ensured that a staff member would be available to provide the requested equipment in a timely manner. It also reduced the number of staff required in the room which aided to maintain people’s privacy and dignity.

A clinical member of staff informed us that they had time to spend with people who underwent procedures and that they would stay with the person until the person was ready to leave the room.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were passionate about the care they provided for people; however, they found the environment challenging due to negative leaders’ behaviours. The service promoted wellbeing days with posters and sign-up sheets for events visible on staff noticeboards. However, most staff we spoke with did not feel positive about working for the provider with multiple staff reported to be leaving or considering it.

There were mixed responses from staff about wellbeing, most people we spoke with reported they did not feel cared for or valued by certain leaders. Another staff member said the service could get very busy but staffed checked on each other. Staff reported specific leaders were not visible, but they knew who to go to if they needed support. There was a designated senior leader available on site daily to support operational matters. Many staff felt it was futile to raise concerns as leaders did not provide considered responses, and it could result with them being ‘pushed out’.

We were told the staff survey results of 2024 were the worst in the service’s history, with themes on leadership, recognition and engagement, showing significant deterioration from the previous survey. The safety theme showed a slight improvement on the previous survey. Leaders had an action plan to address the concerns raised by staff in the survey, however it was too early to assess the impact of any actions taken.

We found the service was not supporting staff adequately, however, this was not impacting the service provided to people.