Aston Institute of Health & Neurodevelopment

Updated 28 July 2023

Aston Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment provides diagnostic MRI imaging and Clinical Neurophysiology services to adults, and children between the ages of 4 and 18 years. It is an independent scanning service located on the Aston University campus. Children and adult patients attending for MRI and MEG diagnostics will do so only as tertiary referrals e.g. as specialist referrals following requests for investigations by a consultant clinician in an NHS Trust or in the private sector. The service will accept GP referrals for neurophysiological diagnostics for adults and children.

The service was open on Monday to Wednesdays between 9am and 5pm for clinical patients and Thursdays and Fridays for research only.

The service had 2 registered managers who managed the service together.

Updated 28 July 2023

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 assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Key services were available to suit patients' needs.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well 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 well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• We found that consent forms were not always consistently completed, and they were not audited.
• The records management policy was 4 years out of date and lacked key information and up to date national guidance.
• There was no strategy or business continuity plan for the service.

Updated 28 July 2023

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 assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Key services were available to suit patients' needs.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well 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 well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• We found that consent forms were not consistently completed and they were not audited.
• Managers did not have processes in place to check on staff’s performance in their other workplaces.
• The records management policy was 4 years out of date and lacked key information and up to date national guidance.
• There was no strategy or business continuity plan for the service.