29 July 2021
During a routine inspection
We had not previously rated the service.
We rated it as good because:
• 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. The service controlled infection risk well.
• Staff provided good care to patients. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Services were available in line with demand.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people.
• People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait long for a diagnostic procedure.
However:
• Recruitment processes were not robust and some staff had started employment prior to written references being sought.
• Whilst staff told us they had an induction when starting work with the service, this was not documented and it was not clear if bank staff had completed an induction.
• Staff were not aware of the incident reporting process and policy. When incidents occurred, there was no evidence of learning that was shared with the team.
• Staff did not have any additional training on patients with individual needs, such as those with mental health issues or learning difficulties.
• Although there were some governance mechanisms, such as the medical advisory committee and the radiation protection committee, there were no meetings that all staff attended where governance issues were discussed. Team meetings took place but these did not follow a set agenda where governance issues could be discussed.
• Staff were not aware of the risks that were on the risk register, even though they were assigned as the risk owner. All risks on the risk register had been closed, most before they had been reviewed.
• Whilst people could give feedback easily, it was not clear how patients could raise formal concerns about care received.