InHealth Jarvis Breast Screening Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last inspection we had insufficient evidence to rate this key question. At this inspection this key question has been rated as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff were aware to ask people when their last screening took place which helped staff to risk assess that enough time had passed since the person was last exposed to clinical radiation.

Staff were aware of the emotions that screening could invoke and were considerate when speaking with people.

There was a standard operating procedure to help support people with a range of additional needs specific to the imaging environment. For example, those living with a learning disability could be confused and nervous of the service. To support peoples’ comfort, staff were aware to offer a quiet area when needed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) and policies were available for staff to access online. These policies were reflective of current guidance and referenced legislation. The updates were evidenced within the document’s revision history which documented changes to reflect current information. Some of these policies were printed and accessible on the health and safety noticeboard in the staff corridor, however, we saw many of the SOPs on this board were not up to date, which could lead to staff following outdated guidance if they referred to the printed versions. However, staff confirmed they knew to look online for guidance. We informed the service of the expired documents, and they have since removed the documents.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. There was an audit programme, with different audits carried out at different frequencies. These included a ceasing audit and a repeated biopsies audit. Audits were sufficient to provide assurance to leaders and staff acted on the results when needed. There were also audit meetings which took place quarterly. ‘Right result’ forms were used, these audit tools followed clinic batches and were audited for reconciliation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us the clinical team worked together effectively and helped each other when the service was busy. A member of this team told us the best thing about their job was the clinical environment and that the clinical team was supportive to them.

The service worked across teams and services to support people. Staff made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The service worked with other services such as local pathology teams, NHS trusts and GPs to manage people’s care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service undertook health promotion work which aimed to encourage screening uptake, one way of supporting this promotion was by attending prisons to help service users understand risks and what to look out for.

The service provided intermittent additional screening days on weekends to accommodate extra people.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured that outcomes were positive, consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service was able to advise people on their screening and when they would next be seen. Leaflets were provided to people to answer questions and signpost them for further information. For people who were aging out of the automatic screening service at 71 years old, they were provided with leaflets which provided reassurance that it was not the end of screening, these leaflets ensured people knew what the next steps were and who they could contact. Staff also provided verbal information and support in person.

Screening targets were consistently monitored through the service’s monthly performance report. Regular audits and reports were undertaken to monitor for improvement opportunities.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The staff were respectful to people and ensured procedures were explained thoroughly to guide consent. Considerations such as language barriers were understood by staff who were aware of informed consent and the need for people to understand the information shared with them. Staff were aware to ask people when their last screening took place to mitigate unnecessary clinical radiation.

Clinicians gained consent directly from their patient which reduced the risk of miscommunication. Certain procedures required written consent from the patient. The provider’s policy required staff and people to be aware and understand risks associated with the procedure to ensure people understood and agreed before proceeding.

Staff told us they received training regarding mental health and the Mental Capacity Act. Staff were aware of the importance of consent and what procedures required written consent.