We carried out a review of the data available to us about Vascular Studies Unit on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Vascular Studies Unit, you can give feedback on this service.
Vascular Studies Unit is operated by Independent Vascular Services Limited. The service opened in May 1999 and delivers vascular investigations to NHS trusts and independent hospitals. There are eight locations across the North West of England.
This service is based in a dedicated area of the host trust in south Manchester and provides vascular ultrasound services for adults and very rarely children and young people. The service has four scanning rooms, a waiting area, a research room and offices.
This location delivered 17,541 scans in the period April 2018 to March 2019.
We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 23 July 2019. We also carried out a separate visit on 29 July 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.
Services we rate
We had not rated the service in previous inspections. We rated it as Good overall.
This was because
Staff received and kept up-to-date with their mandatory training.
staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.
The service controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They kept equipment and the premises visibly clean.
The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. Staff were trained to use them. Staff managed clinical waste well.
Staff knew about and dealt with any specific risk issues.
The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to provide the right care and treatment.
Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date, stored securely and easily available to all staff providing care.
The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and near misses and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients honest information and suitable support. Managers ensured that actions from patient safety alerts were implemented and monitored.
The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. Managers checked to make sure staff followed guidance.
Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment. They used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients. The service had been accredited by
Staff were experienced, qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of patients.
Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.
Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it.
Staff made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment.
Managers planned and organised services, so they met the changing needs of the local population.
The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.
People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were better than national standards.
Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.
Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action.
Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care.
Leaders operated effective governance processes, throughout the service and with partner organisations. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities and had regular opportunities to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of the service.
Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively.
The service collected reliable data and analysed it. Staff could find the data they needed, in easily accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were integrated and secure.
Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients and staff.
All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. They had a good understanding of quality improvement methods and the skills to use them. Leaders encouraged innovation and participation in research.
However
The service’s complaints policy did not set out the process for how self-funded patients could complain.
Ann Ford
Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)
There was a range of information available for patients and we observed patients being treated with respect and courtesy. We saw that capacity was considered and verbal consent to treatment was always sought.
We spoke with four patients on the unit. One patient said 'The staff are polite and respectful.' Another patient said 'I have been to different hospitals and different departments and this is the smoothest process.' A third patient told us 'The staff have been pretty good here, I have no complaints at present.'
We saw that post graduate trainees were employed and supported through a training period after which, if successful, they would gain accreditation. We observed robust recruitment and induction processes and saw that support, training and professional development were ongoing.
We saw safeguarding policies and procedures and staff demonstrated an awareness of safeguarding and mental capacity and consent issues.
We saw that patient feedback was regularly sought and the results analysed and changes made to try to improve the service delivery. We saw the complaints procedure, which was available to all patients and outlined on a poster in the waiting room. We saw evidence that complaints were followed up appropriately.