We carried out a review of the data available to us about Vascular Ultrasound 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 Ultrasound, you can give feedback on this service.
Vascular Ultrasound is operated by Independent Vascular Services Limited. The service opened in May 1999. The service delivers vascular investigations to NHS trusts and independent hospitals. There are eight locations across the North West of England.
This location opened in 2001 is based in a dedicated area of a local hospital trust and services the local community.
Facilities include three scan rooms, an office and a patient waiting area.
The regulated activities delivered by this provider are diagnostics and screening.
We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the short announced inspection on 31 July 2019.
The service delivered 6934 scans in the period April 2018 to March 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 have not rated this service before. 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.
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)
The provider had arrangements in place to deliver the results of scans completed to the healthcare professionals who had requested them in a timely manner. There was a system in place to fast track urgent cases if necessary.
The provider carried out a yearly risk assessment of the environment. We saw evidence that the last one had been completed in January 2013. The assessments considered matters such as fire equipment and precautions, trip hazards and cleanliness.
The provider had arrangements in place to support staff in relation to their role and responsibilities through yearly appraisals. On the day of our inspection the unit was staffed by two senior clinical vascular scientists and a trainee. There was a clear structure to the programme that trainees followed in order to achieve full competence. The provider had a central system in place to maintain an overall record of mandatory staff training.
Arrangements were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided in carrying out the regulated activity. The provider audited staff performance across all types of investigation through periodic reviews of patient cases.
The people we spoke with said following the explanation of the ultrasound procedure the staff asked verbal permission to proceed. We heard that people were satisfied with the service they received. One person said they were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.
We saw that there was two treatment rooms, each had the appropriate equipment and was staffed with a Clinical Vascular Scientist.
We saw that safeguarding policies and procedures for adults and children were available. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about these procedures and confirmed they received training in safeguarding and responding to suspicions of abuse.
Staff told us about the other types of training they received and we saw records of this.
We saw that information was clearly displayed for people to make comments, suggestions and to complain should they wish to do so.