The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: Clinical Diagnostic Services

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

104 Harley Street, London, W1G 7JD (020) 7935 7500

Provided and run by:
Clinical Diagnostic Services LLP

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

28 March 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

  • 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.
  • Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. 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.
  • 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. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services.

21 September 2021

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because:

The service did not always control infection risk well. The service did not conduct infection prevention control (IPC) audits such as hand hygiene audits. Sonographers did not always follow the service’s policy on personal protective equipment (PPE), for example they did not always wear aprons for scans.

There was no formal policy for the management of patients who suddenly became unwell. The provider relied on a co-located service’s emergency equipment.

The service did not manage medicines well. The service could not provide assurance that the staff that offered pain relief were trained and competent to make the decision to treat and administer the medicines safely. They did not record the administration of pain relief in the patient records. The service did not store a contrast agent used for some scanning procedures in a temperature-controlled environment, which was not in accordance with manufacturer guidelines. Patient biopsies that required refrigeration were stored in a fridge with no lock which was used by staff to keep their lunch in. and was accessible to other services who used the premises.

Leaders did not operate effective governance processes. The management of risk process was not fit for purpose. There was no practising privileges agreement in place for the gynaecologist who worked for the service. The service’s policies did not include the author or source guidance. Leaders of the service did not exhibit an understanding of the Duty of Candour.

However:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills.

Staff provided good care to patients. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available with flexible times throughout the week.

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. Feedback from patients was overwhelmingly positive.

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 for a diagnostic procedure.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients.

The service and its director were recognised by the sector for their involvement and pioneering work in developing key technical advances in ultrasound imaging.

29 October 2018

During a routine inspection

Clinical Diagnostic Services at Harley Street is operated by Clinical Diagnostic Services (CDS) LLP. CDS operates ultrasound services across two locations including Harley Street and BMI Hendon Hospital.

The service at Harley Street consists of one scanning and consultation room with an ultrasound machine, an office and shared reception area and waiting room. The service is co-located within other independent healthcare providers.

The service offers advanced ultrasound scanning and transvaginal scanning covering several specialties including general gynaecology and women’s healthcare, fertility managements and In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF), early pregnancy assessments and prenatal screening.

The service provides ultrasound services to patients aged 17 and above. A very small proportion of patients were under 17 years old.

We inspected diagnostic imaging services at Clinical Diagnostic Service at Harley Street using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried an unannounced visit to the service on 29 October 2018.

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.

We rated Clinical Diagnostic Services at Harley Street as requires improvement overall.

  • The service did not provide mandatory training in key skills to staff.
  • There were no comprehensive systems to protect vulnerable people from avoidable harm. Most staff had not completed training on how to recognise and report abuse.
  • There was no infection prevention and control policy or auditing of infection control practice. No hand hygiene or cleaning audits had been undertaken.
  • We were not assured that staff recognised patient safety incidents. There had been one incident reported for this location in the last 12 months and there had been no evidence of lessons shared in relation to the incident.
  • The service did not have comprehensive systems to identify, review and mitigate risks.
  • The service had no internal audit program to monitor its processes and identify where action should be taken. There were no policies to address key patient safety issues. In addition, the service did not have a system to review and update policies.
  • Although staff informed us the service held regular meetings, minutes from meetings were not always recorded.

However:

  • Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. There were safe systems for sharing diagnostic results. Imaging reports were encrypted and sent by secure email.

  • Patients were cared for by experienced staff who maintained appropriate registration with professional bodies.

  • The service monitored the quality of its ultrasound services through an appraisal system from referring clinicians. Feedback about the quality of reporting was positive and there were quick report turnaround times.

  • Feedback for the service inspected was positive. Staff respected confidentiality, dignity and privacy of patients.

  • Services were developed to meet the needs of patients. Staff were aware of people’s individual needs and considered these when providing care.

  • There was a positive culture in the unit and members of staff said they could raise concerns with the leadership team. The service had implemented a number of innovative services and developed these to meet patient’s needs.

Dr Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)