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 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 on the Wirral and provides vascular ultrasound services for adults. The service has two scanning rooms, a waiting area and an office. There is also a satellite location at another hospital at the host trust’s out-patient department with a scanning room.
This location delivered 9500 scans in the period April 2018 to March 2019.
We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short announced inspection on 8 August 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 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. 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)
We found that patients' procedures were assessed, planned and delivered in order to meet their needs. Examination plans were fully documented and reviewed. Patients were fully informed and involved in their procedures. Patients told us they were very satisfied with the service. They said:
'It's excellent, very good' and
'Brilliant, it's all been very good'.
We found that the provider co-operated and worked closely with the contracted trusts. Regular contract monitoring meetings were held and included regular review of the service. Patient's examination records and information was available to the referring consultants in paper form and through the hospital computer system. Patient records were accurate, fit for purpose, held securely and were confidential.
We found the provider had effective systems in place for monitoring the quality of its service. Regular audits were undertaken across the unit, there was an effective complaints process and regular patient satisfaction surveys were undertaken. Quality monitoring and service review featured in the corporate governance systems that were in place.
We saw the service had procedures in place for dealing with medical emergencies. Staff received training and support to carry out their role and there were quality assurance systems in place.