Life Through The Lens - Stoke 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 means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment, the rating is Requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

Staff did not always record when a chaperone was offered or declined. There were no communication tools in place as well as no leaflets in other languages or access to an interpreting service. Staff did not always follow national guidance, and new staff were not provided with an appropriate induction.

The service was in breach of regulation for safe care and treatment, staffing, and person-centred care.

The team had access to a team of sonographers that met the needs of service users in the service. Staff worked well with other services in the NHS. They shared relevant information over the telephone when needed.

We observed a good working relationship between the sonographer and the receptionist on the day of the inspection. There were processes to ensure that service users consented to the procedure. Service users were provided with information on arrival which they signed. Additional information was available on the service website.

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 maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 15 care records during the assessment. Patient records were limited to a 1 page patient disclaimer which service users completed on arrival at the service. The disclaimer included patient consent form.

The sonographer made any notes from the scan on the back of the disclaimer form including any anomalies found. Staff told us notes in relation to any findings were sent with the patient to their appointment. Patient records were kept for 7 years.

We noted staff did not always record when chaperones had been offered and declined. Staff recorded service user consent; they told us most service users attended with a partner or someone else.

At the time of our inspection one of filing cabinets which contained patient records could not be locked; staff told us a new key had been ordered.

A referral form was available when an anomaly was found, however staff were not using this as referrals were now done over the telephone. There was no process in place for following up any referrals made to the NHS or audit them. There was no written trail of the referral.

Service users were sent an email with images of their scans, but staff told us there was no back up system in place if these were to be lost for any reason. Service users were also provided a copy of their handwritten report.

There were no communication aids in place. There were no leaflets available in other languages if needed. There was no interpreting service available.

We plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We scored the service as 1. The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff did not always follow national guidance, for example staff did not follow guidelines relating to quality assurance checks of the scanning machine. Sonographers visually reviewed the equipment but there were no records to evidence they had done this.

We observed a sonographer giving medicine advice to a patient. We raised this at the time of our inspection and were assured that this would not take place in the future.

Managers did not provide new staff with an appropriate induction. Staff told us new sonographers shadowed staff but there were no records to show this took place.

Managers did not provide staff with supervision to reflect on and learn from practice, for personal support and professional development, and appraisal of their work performance. The percentage of staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 0%. The percentage of staff that received regular supervision was 0%.

Managers did not ensure that staff had access to regular team meetings. Managers did not identify the learning needs of staff or provide them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge.

There was As Low as Reasonably Achievable policy. The policy documented how Life Through The Lens was committed to using the lowest ultrasound power settings that achieve diagnostic keepsake imaging goals, limiting scan duration, avoiding unnecessary repeat scanning, and applying safe doppler usage in line with national guidance.

Managers did not ensure that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles. The service had access to a team of sonographers to meet the needs of service users in the service.

We work effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only need to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they move between different services.

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 worked well with other services in the NHS. They shared relevant information over the telephone when needed.

We observed a good working relationship between the sonographer and the receptionist on the day of the inspection.

We support people to manage their health and wellbeing so they can maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice, and control. The service did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service did not offer any additional support. For example, there were no patient leaflets available on areas such as smoking cessation or signposting to other support services.

The sonographer advised people to contact the NHS or their GP when required. Staff told us they checked service users had midwife appointments and that they could also advise on contact numbers for local maternity units and provide Bounty packs.

We routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes are positive and consistent, and that they meet both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We scored the service as 1. The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service did not participate in clinical audit, benchmarking, or quality improvement initiatives. They did not measure patient outcomes.

We tell people about their rights around consent and respect these when we deliver person-centred care and treatment.

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.

Staff told us if they had concerns about a patient's capacity to consent, they would not complete the scan. Staff gained and recorded consent as required.

There were processes to ensure that service users consented to the procedure. Service users were provided with information on arrival which they signed. Additional information was available on the service website. There was a consent policy, however this contained limited information.