The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

InHealth MRI - Croydon University Hospital

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Croydon University Hospital, 530 London Road, Thornton Heath, Surrey, CR7 7YE (020) 8401 3696

Provided and run by:
InHealth Limited

All Inspections

09 November 2021

During a routine inspection

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

  • The service did not always control infection risk well. The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment did not always keep people safe. Staff did not always assessed risks to patients.
  • Staff did not always respected patient’s privacy and dignity. They did not always provide emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • People did not always have access the service when they needed it and sometimes had to wait for treatment. The service did not always take account of patients’ individual needs.
  • Leaders and teams identified and escalated relevant risks but had not always identified actions to reduce their impact. Leaders and teams did not always have plans to cope with unexpected events.

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. The service managed safety incidents and learned lessons from them.
  • Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff supported them to make decisions about their care and had access to good information.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback.
  • Leaders ran services using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care.
  • Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Following the inspection, the provider told us they had addressed some of the concerns found during the inspection. These will be followed up at the next inspection.

21 January 2019

During a routine inspection

Croydon MRI Centre delivers Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans to people within the grounds of the Croydon University Hospital NHS Trust. The service had an open scanner which was used for both bariatric and claustrophobic patients who are unable to tolerate a traditional scanner, and as such takes referrals from all over England for bariatric patients who required an MRI scan. At the time of inspection all patients attending the centre were NHS funded patients.

InHealth is a specialist provider of diagnostic imaging services to the NHS hospitals. The company provides services to over 200 hospitals under service level agreement. Some of their services were based at over 100 community based medical centres, GP surgeries and health clinics, providing access to a wide range of diagnostic imaging services for patients across the UK.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 21 January 2019.

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

We rated this service as good overall.

We found the following areas of good practice because:

  • The service had systems, processes and practices essential to protect patients from avoidable harm.

  • The design, maintenance and use of facilities and premises were appropriate and standards of cleanliness and hygiene were well maintained.

  • The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

  • Staff managed patients’ individual care records in a way that protected them from avoidable harm.

  • Staff assessed patients’, and planned and delivered care and treatment in line with evidence-based guidance, standards and best practice.

  • Managers routinely collected, and pro-actively monitored information about the outcomes of people’s care and treatment.

  • Staff had the right qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience to do their job when they started their employment, took on new responsibilities, and on a continual basis.

  • Patients had timely access to scanning and were provided with a choice of appointments.

  • Staff understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Children Acts 1989 and 2004.

  • Staff treated patients with dignity, kindness, compassion, courtesy and respect. Staff were caring, kind and engaged appropriately with patients.

  • Managers used information about the needs of the local population to inform how services were planned and delivered.

  • Services were planned to take account of the needs of different people, and referrals were prioritised by clinical urgency.

  • Leaders had the skills, knowledge, passion and experience to drive the service forward into the future.

  • The provider had a clear vision and a set of values, with quality and safety as top priorities.

  • Staff were supported with professional development and ongoing education.

    Dr Nigel Acheson

    Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (South London and South Central)

19 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who were using the service and a family member. We spoke with the registered manager, two radiographers and a radiographer assistant.

One person said they had 'received very good care, staff are helpful, and cheerful.' Another person said 'staff are fantastic, the receptionist is great. I was really nervous, staff put me at ease.'

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We found that staff assessed people's needs and planned treatment for each individual, taking into account any risks. The provider had arrangements in place to check that equipment was safely maintained and suitable for use. Appropriate recruitment checks were undertaken before staff began employment. The registered manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care provided.

20 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke to a wide range of staff and three people who used the service. We observed staff interacting with people who use the service in a respectful and personalised manner.

We saw records of three people who used the service which were accurate and up to date.

Four members of staff said they enjoyed their work and felt well supported. Staff told us there were good opportunities for training and development. We saw records of staff training.

Three people who used the service told us that "staff were pleasant, professional and helpful".

We saw a summary of client satisfaction surveys - example comments seen included "my privacy was maintained at all times", "there was no waiting for my appointment" and "staff explained the procedure clearly and reassured me".

The manager told us that all new staff had a company induction at Head Office in addition to local orientation to the unit. One member of staff told us "they had acted as a mentor for more junior staff". Another member of staff told us "they had protected time to read and become familiar with policies".