The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Watford Clinic

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Victoria House 45-47, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD18 0DE (01923) 802489

Provided and run by:
Ultrasound Plus Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

27 May 2021

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • The environment was well maintained but it was not always suitable for all types of care and procedures being provided. The service did have some processes for reporting, investigating incidents but there was a lack of evidence of lessons learnt being shared with staff.
  • The systems and processes in place to ensure policies and guidelines were reviewed was not effective. The service did have some processes in place to monitor the effectiveness of care but did not use the findings to improve them. The service did not always make sure staff were competent for their roles.
  • There was not an effective system for learning from complaints.
  • There were some systems and processes in place to maintain the overall governance of the service, but these were not fully embedded. There was no evidence of that risks and the mitigating actions were discussed with the team. There was lack of systematic approach to continuously improve by learning from when things went well or wrong.

However:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. Staff managed clinical waste well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to raise concerns and report safety incidents.
  • Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients.
  • 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 emotional support to patients.
  • The service planned care 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 treatment.
  • The manager did have the right skills and knowledge to run a service. The service engaged well with patients. Staff felt respected, supported and valued.

25 April 2019 and 08 May 2019

During a routine inspection

Watford Clinic is operated by Ultrasound Plus Ltd. The service provides diagnostic imaging through ultrasound scanning only. The service provides diagnostic pregnancy, gynaecological, musculoskeletal and general ultrasound scans for private patients aged 18 and above in the Hertfordshire, Essex, London and surrounding areas. The service also provides diagnostic ultrasounds from their two satellite clinics in the following locations:

  • Brentwood, Essex.

  • Docklands, London.

Watford Clinic was registered with the CQC in April 2018 under the company name Ultrasound Plus. The service has not previously been inspected by the CQC.

We inspected this service under our independent single speciality diagnostic framework and using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short notice announced inspection on 24 April and 07 May 2019. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice, to ensure the availability of the registered manager.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we asked 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

We have not previously rated this service. At this inspection in April 2019, we rated the service as requires improvement overall.

We found areas of practice that the service needed to improve:

  • The service did not provide mandatory training in key skills to all staff. Staff were not compliant with mandatory training targets. There was limited managerial oversight of staff training completion rates.

  • Systems, processes and standard operating procedures were not always reliable or appropriate to keep people safe. Policies did not support staff to safeguard patients from abuse and harm. However, staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and most staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

  • The service did not have effective processes for reporting, investigating and learning from incidents. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to raise concerns and report safety incidents. There was a variable understanding of the duty of candour regulation.

  • We did not see evidence of the service working with other providers to improve the pathway for patients to local services.

  • There was not an effective system for recording, handling, responding to, and learning from complaints.

  • Managers at all levels in the service did not have all the right skills and knowledge to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.

  • The service did not have a systematic approach to improving service quality and safeguarding high standards of care. There was a lack of there was a lack of overarching governance.

  • There were not effective systems in place for managing risks, and there was no evidence risks and their mitigating actions were discussed with the team.

    However, we found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service had sufficient staff of an appropriate skill mix, to enable the effective delivery of safe care and treatment.

  • Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed staff treated them well and with kindness.

  • Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress.

  • Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.

  • The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people.

  • The service was generally accessible to all who needed it and took account of patients’ individual needs.

  • Managers supported staff across the service, however they did not create a sense of common purpose.

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. We also issued the provider with four requirement notices. Details are at the end of the report. As a result of the inspection findings, the service has been placed into special measures. We will reinspect in six months to check that improvements have been made.

Edward Baker

Chief Inspector of Hospitals