Archived: The Mary How Trust for Cancer Prevention

The service had not been previously rated. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff kept good care records.
• Staff provided good screening services to patients. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, and had access to good information. Key services were 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 screening. They provided emotional support to patients.
• The service planned screening services to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for a screening appointment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. The service had a vision and it was focused on the needs of patients. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Staff did not always complete mandatory training in key skills and did not always have the relevant level of safeguarding adults and children training. Not all staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns.
• The manager did not always manage safety incidents well and did not always identify learned lessons from them.
• The service did not have assurance staff were competent in their role. The service did not have assurance staff were trained and competent to use equipment.
• Staff collected limited safety information and they did not use it to improve the service. Managers did not formally monitor the effectiveness of the service.
• The service did not have robust assurance processes, for example the service had not ensured persons employed met Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Therefore, the service could not be sure staff were proper persons.
• The service did not always identify relevant risks due to limited assurance processes.