Stockport Imaging Centre

Updated 2 December 2019

Stockport Imaging Centre is operated by Alliance Medical Limited. The service opened in July 2002 as a single scanning unit. A second scanner was added in May 2016 following the addition of a modular extension unit. The service provides diagnostic scans to NHS services throughout the Stockport area and also for private patients. The service sees both adults and children.

The regulated activities delivered by this provider are diagnostics and screening.

This location delivered approximately 14,000 scans in the period June 2018 to May 2019.

The service was last inspected in June 2013 but was not rated.

This service has had a registered manager in post since 2011.

The service is accredited by the Imaging Services Accreditation Scheme (now known as the Quality Standard for Imaging). The accreditation scheme was developed by the Royal College of Radiologists and College of Radiographers to support diagnostic imaging services to make continuous improvements to ensure that patients consistently receive high quality services delivered by competent staff working in safe environments.

The service is accredited to ISO27001 standards. This provides a model for establishing, implementing, operating, monitoring, reviewing, maintaining and improving an information security management system.

The service is also an accredited Investors In People employer.

Updated 2 December 2019

Stockport Imaging Centre is operated by Alliance Medical Limited. The service provides magnetic resonance diagnostic imaging services to NHS patients throughout the Stockport area and also for private patients. The service sees both adults and children.

Stockport Imaging Centre provides a scan only service. All reporting is completed by radiologists from the host trust. Reports for privately funded patients were completed by a third-party contractor.

The service is based next to the emergency department of the host trust. It was opened in 2002 and contained one scanner at that time. A modular building extension was opened in May 2016 incorporating a second scanner and associated equipment.

The department delivered approximately 14,000 scans in the period June 2018 to May 2019. This figure included 786 paediatric scans and 97 private patient scans.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 26 September 2019 and conducted a telephone interview with the unit manager on 4 October 2019.

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

We previously inspected the service in 2013 but did not rate it.

We rated the service as Good overall for this inspection. This was because:

• Staff received and kept up-to-date with their mandatory training.

• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it.

• The service controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They kept equipment and the premises visibly clean.

• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. Staff were trained to use them. Staff managed clinical waste well.

• Staff knew about and dealt with any specific risk issues.

• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to provide the right care and treatment.

• Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date, stored securely and easily available to all staff providing care.

• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and near misses and reported them appropriately. Managers ensured that actions from patient safety alerts were implemented and monitored.

• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice.

• Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment. They used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients.

• Staff were experienced, qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of patients.

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

• Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it.

• Staff made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment.

• Managers planned and organised services, so they met the changing needs of the local population.

• The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.

• People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care promptly.

• Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.

• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff.

• The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action.

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

• Leaders operated effective governance processes, throughout the service and with partner organisations. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities and had regular opportunities to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of the service.

• Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively.

• The service collected reliable data and analysed it. Staff could find the data they needed, in easily accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were integrated and secure.

• Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients and staff.

• All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services.

However:

• The service failed to notify us, without delay, of a serious incident requiring notification.

• Both adult and children safeguarding policies did not reference up to date guidance.

• There was a shortage of administrative staff which appeared to be causing that team additional work pressures. The service had since confirmed that a new staff member had been recruited to the vacant post.

• The administrative environment was cramped.

• The design of the office environment meant it could be difficult for staff to make difficult telephone calls in private if there were also patients in the waiting area.

• The service did not monitor the reasons why patients were not always being scanned in accordance with turnaround time targets, especially cancer patients.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with requirement notices. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)

Updated 2 December 2019

This service provides magnetic resonance diagnostic imaging services mainly for adults and children.

The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to provide the right care and treatment. The service controlled infection risk well.

Staff followed national guidelines and worked together for the benefit of patients. Staff were caring and always respected the privacy and dignity of patients. Patients did not have to wait long for services. There was a good culture and staff felt respected and valued. There were governance structures in place to support services and manage risk.

However, the service had not notified us, without delay, of a serious incident requiring notification. The service’s safeguarding policies also did not reference up to date guidance.