9 December 2019
During a routine inspection
Private Ultrasound Limited is operated by Private Ultrasound Limited. The service provides pregnancy ultrasound, gynaecological and fertility scans for women, as well as liver, upper abdominal, kidney, bladder and prostate scans for patients. The service took referrals from self-paying patients from a wide geographical area, although they were mainly located in London.
The service provides diagnostic imaging for patients aged 18 years and over. It is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activity of diagnostic and screening procedures. It has one ultrasound machine in one clinic room.
We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 9 December 2019. We gave staff 48 working hours’ notice we were coming to inspect to ensure the availability of the registered manager and patients.
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
This is the first time we inspected this service. We rated it as Good overall because:
- The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and managed safety well. The service-controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
- Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to drink, and checked if they were comfortable during their scans. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Consent processes were followed and patients were advised on how to prepare for scans. The service was available six days a week.
- Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their scan results. They provided emotional support to patients where necessary.
- The service planned care to meet the needs of their patient population and took account of most patients’ individual needs. 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. 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.
However:
- Although staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so, safeguarding policy did not reference female genital mutilation (FGM). We were not assured staff had training on how to recognise and report all types of abuse, and how to apply it. Not all policies referenced up-to-date national guidance.
- Although the service did not perform any blood tests or wound care, they did not have spill kits to clean blood or other bodily fluid spillages.
- There was no formal written evidence of risk assessment or consent in patient records.
- The sonographer did not receive a formal appraisal, although the quality of their work was reviewed twice a year. Staff did not have regular opportunities to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of the service.
- At the time of inspection, the service did not provide information to people on how to give feedback and raise concerns about care they received.
Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.