Dorset Heart Clinic

Updated 27 June 2022

Dorset Heart Clinic is an independent healthcare provider specialising in interventional cardiac procedures and health screening. It is a limited liability partnership between a local NHS trust and Regent’s Park Heart Clinics and was established in 2017 when it was registered with the Care Quality Commission. The service provides private cardiology services to people living in Dorset and the surrounding counties using the services and facilities provided by a local NHS trust (referred to as the host trust throughout the report).

The service offers a range of diagnostic tests including ECGs, ambulatory monitoring, echocardiography (to check how the heart’s chambers and valves are pumping blood through the heart) and cardiac imaging. The service also offers treatment procedures which include coronary angiogram (a type of x-ray procedure used to check the blood vessels in the heart), coronary angioplasty (a procedure used to open blocked blood vessels surrounding the heart), insertion of cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators to treat cardiac arrhythmias. The service also offered electrophysiology (a test used to diagnose abnormal heartbeats) and ablation (a procedure used to treat irregular heartbeats).

The service employs 19 consultants working under practising privileges arrangements (a license agreed between individual medical professionals and private healthcare providers). All consultants hold substantive NHS consultant appointments. All consultants are registered with the General Medical Council with additional specialist registration. The service also employs two administration staff and a registered manager.

There are contractual partnership agreements (Service Level Agreement -SLA) which include information that the local NHS trust provides all facilities, equipment, medicines, clinical staff, policies and procedures. The SLA also sets out the arrangements for managing records, medicines and safety incidents.

The service is registered to provide diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder and injury.

There was a registered manager who had been in post since December 2021. However, they were on long term sick leave at the time of our inspection.

The service had not previously been inspected. There were no special reviews or investigations of the service ongoing by the CQC during the 12 months before the inspection.

Activity (1 March 2021 to 28 February 2022)

• There were 164 inpatient and day case interventional procedures; all of these were privately funded or funded by private healthcare insurance.
• There were 791 outpatient appointments; all of these were privately funded or funded by private healthcare insurance.
• The service had carried out 925 diagnostic tests such as cardiac electrocardiogram (ECG, echocardiograms and exercise ECG tests; all of these were privately funded or funded by private health care insurance.

Updated 27 June 2022

We rated it as good because:

• There was 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. Infection risks were controlled well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept care records. Medicines and incidents were managed well, and the service had oversight of this. The service completed patient records using the host trust’s electronic patient record system in line with their partnership agreement.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. However, it was not always clear how patient outcomes were reviewed.
• 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. Patients told us they had received compassionate care when they contacted the service and when they attended for appointments or interventional procedures
• 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. However, information about how to make a complaint about care and treatment was not shared effectively with patients.
• There was lack of evidence to support safe recruitment processes. Local leadership had been impacted by the absence of a registered manager. Governance processes were not always carried out to demonstrate oversight of patient safety and outcomes and risks were not captured effectively. However, 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 staff were committed to improving services continually.

Updated 27 June 2022

This was the first time we inspected the service. We rated it as good because:

• There was 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. Infection risks were controlled well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept care records. Medicines and incidents were managed well, and the service had oversight of this. However, the service did not hold their patient records but used the host trust electronic patient records.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. However, managers did not review patient outcomes for patients who had received care in the service specifically.
• 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. However, information about how to make a complaint about care and treatment was not shared effectively with patients
• There was lack of evidence to support safe recruitment processes. Local leadership had been impacted by the absence of a registered manager. Governance processes were not always carried out to demonstrate oversight of patient safety and outcomes and risks were not captured effectively. However, 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 staff were committed to improving services continually.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring and responsive, although leadership requires improvement.