The Virtual Cath Lab Surrey Ltd Also known as Surrey Cardiovascular Clinic

Updated 22 December 2021

The Virtual Cath Lab Surrey Ltd is operated by Virtual Cath Lab Limited. Online, the service is called Heartscan Direct. It is a diagnostic and screening service clinic in Guildford, Surrey. The service primarily serves the communities of Surrey. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area. All patients are privately funded. The service only saw patients who were adults aged 18 or over.

The service has a registered manager, who has been in post since January 2020, and is registered to provide the following regulated activity:

• Diagnostic and screening procedures

The service was registered in January 2020 and has not previously been inspected. New services are assessed at registration to check they are likely to be safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

The service sees patients on a day case basis and has no overnight beds. Currently the only service provided is computerised tomography (CT). This is a type of scan that can help detect a variety of diseases and conditions. CT is fast, painless and non-invasive. CT is also used to diagnose or monitor diseases and to plan surgical or radiotherapy treatments.

The Virtual Cath Lab Surrey Ltd has one CT scanner and specialises in cardiac conditions. The waiting area, consulting rooms and some staff were shared under a service level agreement (SLA) with another service not covered in this inspection. The unit employed two radiographers on a part-time basis and had access to a further radiographer on the bank when required. Consultant cardiologists were employed via practicing privileges. Administration staff were shared with another service under an SLA.

Between 26 November 2020 and 6 May 2021, the service completed 260 CT scans. The majority of these were CT coronary angiography examinations, and the rest were coronary artery calcium scoring.

We carried out an announced inspection with seven day’s notice on 29 July 2021 using our comprehensive inspection methodology: this was to ensure we could observe patient care on the day.

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.

Updated 22 December 2021

We had not previously rated the service.

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 provided good care to patients. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Services were available in line with demand.

• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions.

• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people.

• People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait long for a diagnostic procedure.

However:

• Recruitment processes were not robust and some staff had started employment prior to written references being sought.

• Whilst staff told us they had an induction when starting work with the service, this was not documented and it was not clear if bank staff had completed an induction.

• Staff were not aware of the incident reporting process and policy. When incidents occurred, there was no evidence of learning that was shared with the team.

• Staff did not have any additional training on patients with individual needs, such as those with mental health issues or learning difficulties.

• Although there were some governance mechanisms, such as the medical advisory committee and the radiation protection committee, there were no meetings that all staff attended where governance issues were discussed. Team meetings took place but these did not follow a set agenda where governance issues could be discussed.

• Staff were not aware of the risks that were on the risk register, even though they were assigned as the risk owner. All risks on the risk register had been closed, most before they had been reviewed.

• Whilst people could give feedback easily, it was not clear how patients could raise formal concerns about care received.

Updated 22 December 2021

We have not previously rated the service. We rated it as good.