You are here

Archived: Brayford Studio Inadequate

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 10 July 2019

Brayford Studio was operated by Brayford Studio Limited. The service was situated at ground level in a small building on an office park close to the City of Lincoln.

The service provided diagnostic imaging specifically for ultrasound scanning procedures. This included baby scans and gynaecological scans and for diagnostic purposes as well as keepsake for reassurance purposes. The provider refered clients to hospital or other services where required.

We inspected this service using our focused inspection methodology. We carried out the inspection on 13 May 2019.

During our inspection, we looked for improvements made following the issue of a warning notice dated 3 February 2019, following the inspection dated 22 January 2019. We did not provide an overall rating for this provider at this inspection as we did not carry out a comprehensive inspection. We looked at a number but not all of key lines of enquiry within the key question for safe and well led.

Services we rate

We found areas of practice that required improvement;

  • There was no mandatory training programme in key skills for staff, and no induction programme.

  • There was no safeguarding policy and no written protocols available for staff to be able to identify and manage any safeguarding concerns.

  • There was a chaperone policy in place, however this did not include acknowldegment to a requirement of appropriate chaperone training or completion of any pre employment checks.

  • The service did not control infection risk well. There was an infection prevention and control policy in place, however, it was limited and did not cover all areas of infection prevention and control. There was no standard cleaning schedule in place.

  • There were no arrangements in place for maintenance and calibration of scanning equipment.

  • There was no schedule or process for secure destruction of paper records in line with legislation. This posed a risk to the confidentiality of client information.

  • There was not an effective governance framework in place to deliver good quality care.

  • There were limited written policies, processes or protocols in place to govern and monitor activity.

  • The provider did not ensure that all staff underwent appropriate checks as required by schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (regulated activities) regulation 2014.

  • There was no mechanism for monitoring the quality and safety of the provider’s practice.

  • The service had no systems in place to identify, record or manage risks and cope with both the expected and unexpected.

  • There was no systematic programme of clinical and internal audits.

Following our inspection, we commenced further enforcement activity.

Name of signatory

Nigel Acheson – Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals.

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 10 July 2019

  • There was no safeguarding policy and no written protocols available for staff to be able to identify and manage any safeguarding concerns.

  • There was a chaperone policy in place and there was access to a suitable chaperone for intimate gynaecological scans, however we were not assured this provided good quality care.

  • The service did not control infection risk well. There was an infection prevention and control policy in place, however it did not include all elements of infection, prevention and control. There was no standard cleaning schedule.

  • There were no arrangements in place for maintenance and calibration of scanning equipment.

  • There were no schedules or processes for secure destruction of paper records in line with legislation. This posed a risk to the confidentiality of client information.

Effective

Updated 10 July 2019

Caring

Good

Updated 10 July 2019

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 July 2019

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 10 July 2019

  • We were not assured that there were effective governance systems in place to ensure the regulated activities were carried on in accordance with the regulations. This meant there was a risk the health, welfare and safety of people who used the service might not be protected.

  • There was not an effective governance framework in place to deliver good quality care. There were no written policies, processes or protocols in place to govern and monitor activity.

  • The provider did not ensure that all staff underwent appropriate checks as required by schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (regulated activities) regulation 2014.
  • There was no policy for the storage, security and destruction of records. There was no schedule or process for secure destruction of records in line with legislation. There was a risk of unauthorised access to these records. This posed a risk to the confidentiality of client information

  • There was no mechanism for monitoring the quality and safety of the provider’s practice.
  • The service had no systems in place to identify, record or manage risks and cope with both the expected and unexpected.
  • There was no systematic programme of clinical and internal audit.
Checks on specific services

Diagnostic imaging

Inadequate

Updated 10 July 2019