We carried out a review of the data available to us about Plymouth PET CT Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Plymouth PET CT Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
Plymouth PET-CT Centre is operated by Alliance Medical Limited (AML). The service is provided from a unit located within the Derriford hospital site. This service provides diagnostic imaging services via positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) to the local community. The service also provided computed tomography (CT) scans for patients of Derriford Hospital. Following an organisational programme to transfer mobile services to static units throughout the country to improve patient experience and improve integration with local trusts, the static PET-CT Centre opened in 2017.
The registered manager was supported by a Clinical Lead Radiographer/Technologist, a nuclear technologist, radiographers and clinical assistants. Two administrators provided booking, administration and reception duties.
The unit was open on Mondays through to Saturday. On Thursdays and Saturdays, the service provided only CT scans.
We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. The inspection was announced and took place on 17 September 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
Our rating of this hospital/service stayed the same. We rated it as Good overall.
The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and provided detailed scan reports. The staff reported incidents, and learning was shared within the service and across the wider organisation.
Staff were trained and competent and provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. The service was available five days a 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 support to patients, families and carers.
The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and enabled patients to give feedback. Patients could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for their diagnostic test.
Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services.
However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:
Staff did not fully promote the control of infection as they did not consistently follow hand hygiene procedures. Cleaning materials were not securely stored and were accessible from areas patients used.
Environmental risk assessments did not ensure the safety of the patients and staff. Routine checks had not been consistently completed to ensure the emergency equipment was ready for use.
A robust checking procedure to ensure the right patient was scanned at the right time was not consistently followed prior to completing patient scans.
While staff reported incidents and learning was shared, practice was not consistently reviewed and developed to reduce the risk of the same incident reoccurring. When things went wrong a written apology was not provided in line with the duty of candour legislation.
Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.
Nigel Acheson