Medserena Upright MRI 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

This is the first time we have rated effective for diagnostic imaging at this location. We rated effective as good.

Staff worked well together for the benefit of people who used the service. They assessed people's needs and supported them to make decisions about their care. Staff followed national guidance to gain consent. Most people experienced positive outcomes following their care and treatment.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Admission policies were in place to provide guidance for staff around the assessments required prior to admission to the service.

Each person underwent an initial telephone assessment as part of the referral triage process and they also completed a safety questionnaire to identify any potential risks prior to their scan. People’s MRI scan requirements, suitability for the scan procedure and arrangements for scan reporting were reviewed and discussed with them.

People who used the service told us staff carried out assessments prior to undertaking scan procedures to identify key risks and these took into account their needs and preferences.

The care records we looked at showed initial assessments and safety questionnaires were completed appropriately prior to commencing scans and people’s key risks and needs were reviewed and discussed with them.

Clinical guidelines and pathways were based on national guidance, such as from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) safety guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging equipment in clinical use.

Policies and local rules for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety were in place. Staff understood how to access these both in paper format and electronically.

Safety policies and local rules risk assessments associated with the MRI scanning processes had been updated within the 12 months prior to our inspection and had been read by each member of staff to confirm they understood them. The registered manager was the nominated safety officer and was supported by an external safety expert, in line with MHRA safety guidelines.

Staff followed a number of MRI scan pathways and protocols, such as for brain, spinal and joint, hip and knee scans. Scan protocols and pathways were developed by the corporate provider centrally with involvement and input from staff at this location.

Changes to national guidance and policies, safety protocols and scan pathways were reviewed and updated through routine MRI safety committee meetings and shared with staff during routine staff meetings.

People who used the service told us they did not have any concerns about the quality of the MRI scan procedures. They told us their scan procedures were undertaken effectively and staff fulfilled their needs and requirements.

We saw there was effective daily communication and team working between the radiographers and administrative staff so people’s scans could be planned, coordinated and delivered effectively. Daily staff huddles and routine staff meetings took place so staff had up to date information about planning and delivery of scan procedures and any risks or concerns. Staff routinely engaged colleagues across the provider’s other locations to plan and deliver services.

Staff told us they were able to contact referring clinicians and consultant radiologists when needed. Service partners and stakeholders told us they engaged with staff on a daily basis to support the planning and delivery of scan procedures and scan reports.

People who used the service spoke positively about the way their scans were planned and coordinated. They told us the staff at the service worked well together as a team.

The service had contractual arrangements for a number of support services such as domestic services, clinical waste disposal and equipment maintenance.

The operations manager told us they did not routinely offer health promotion advice due to the specific and specialist nature of the diagnostic imaging services they provided.

The operations manager confirmed they provided advice to people verbally and in writing relating to their scan procedure and advised people to contact their general practitioner or referring clinician if they required advice and support around healthier living.

People who used the service spoke positively about the quality of the care and treatment they received. They told us staff met their expectations and they did not have any concerns around the quality of their scan images or scan reports.

The service did not participate in any local or national clinical audits or benchmark people’s outcomes with any external organisations.

The operations manager told us people’s outcomes were measured through evaluating people’s experiences, such as their feedback about using the service and from incidents and complaints. We found feedback from people who used the service was mostly positive and the service had reported low numbers of incidents and complaints. This indicated most people had a positive experience and their expected outcomes had been achieved.

There was a process in place for the peer review of scan images and reports to gain assurance that scan procedures were carried out in line with national guidelines and the provider’s policies. An independent consultant radiologist peer reviewed a sample of 20 randomly selected scan records each month. Recent peer review records showed there had been no errors or concerns in relation to the scans performed.

The provider’s ‘need for consent’ standard operating procedure outlined the process for obtaining verbal and written consent from people who used the service prior to undergoing scan procedures.

The service only provided MRI scan procedures for people over 16 years of age. People that were unable to give consent or had certain conditions, such as mental ill health were excluded for admission to the service.

Managers told us if a person lacked capacity to make their own decisions (such as those living with dementia or a learning disability), then they would carry out an assessment as part of the initial consultation process to determine if they could admitted for treatment.

Staff told us they understood how to obtain informed verbal and written consent from people who used the service before commencing scans. This included respecting people’s wishes if they refused treatment or withdrew their consent.

People who used the service told us they provided written consent on the safety questionnaire prior to undergoing scans. They told us all the risks and benefits of the scan procedure were clearly explained to them verbally and in writing.

Staff recorded consent in people’s records and made sure they consented to treatment based on all the information available. We looked at 10 care records, of which 9 records showed written consent had been obtained and risks and benefits of the scan procedure had been explained to people who use the service.

We found 1 record with a missing consent signature and the operations manager confirmed this was a documentation error and was able to demonstrate how verbal implied consent had been obtained prior to commencing scans.

Information about fees and charges was clearly recorded in the care records we looked at. People who self-funded told us the fees charged for undertaking scans were clearly explained to them as part of their initial booking information.