Genesis Care, Oxford

Updated 6 May 2021

GenesisCare Oxford is an independent provider of cancer services and a small number of out-patient services. They provide diagnostic imaging services, radiotherapy services, chemotherapy and nuclear medicine. There is a one stop breast clinic and a urology clinic. It provides services for anyone in the country and from abroad.

GenesisCare has a registered manager who has been in post for four years. They were inspected in 2019 and the report was published on 31/10/2019. There were no compliance actions following the report and the service was rated outstanding.

The regulated activities are

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.
• Family planning.
• Diagnostics and screening.

The main service provided by this centre was cancer care. We have inspected and reported all cancer care services under the CQC Cancer Assessment Framework. The service also provided some non-cancer care outpatient services which are rated in the Outpatients section of the report. Where our findings on cancer – for example, management arrangements – also apply to outpatient services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the cancer services report.

Updated 6 May 2021

Our rating of this location went down. 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 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. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care including end of life care. They had access to good information. The implementation of new technology had been delivered well with excellent multidisciplinary input to ensure patient safety.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. There was a holistic approach to patient care that focused not just on physical health but psychological support and support for well -being and this was part of an end-to-end pathway.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of its patients, it took account of patients’ individual needs. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment. There was learning from complaints that was used to improve services.
• 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. 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 the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to continually improving services.

However:

• In the radiation control areas in Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography (PET/CT), the signs were not always turned on to show somebody was present in the room in line with guidance from the Health and Safety Executive.
• In PET/CT a radioactive dose was prepared but not labelled, it then needed to be transferred to a patient who was not in the same room. This meant the dose could possibly go to the wrong patient.

Updated 6 May 2021

Our rating of this service went down. 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 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. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care including end of life care. Staff had access to good information.
• The implementation of new technology had been delivered well with excellent multidisciplinary support to ensure patient safety.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. There was a holistic approach to patient care that focused not just on physical health but psychological support and support for well -being and this was part of an end to end pathway.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of its patients, it took account of patients’ individual needs. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment. There was learning from complaints that was used to improve services.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s purpose 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 the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to continually improving services.

However:

• In the radiation control areas in Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography (PET/CT), the signs were not always turned on to show somebody was present in the room in line with guidance from the Health and Safety Executive.
• In PET/CT a radioactive dose was prepared but not labelled, it then needed to be transferred to a patient who was not in the same room. This meant the dose could possibly go to the wrong patient.

Updated 31 October 2019

Diagnostic imaging services were a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was medical care.

Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the medical service section.

We rated this service as good in safe caring and responsive and outstanding in well led.

We were unable to rate effective due to limited data.

Updated 6 May 2021

Our rating of this service went down. 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 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. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care including end of life care. They had access to good information. The implementation of new technology had been delivered well with excellent multidisciplinary buy- in to ensure patient safety.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. There was a holistic approach to patient care that focused not just on physical health but psychological support and support for well -being and this was part of an end-to-end pathway.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of its patients, it took account of patients’ individual needs. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment. There was learning from complaints that was used to improve services.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care and were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to continually improving services.

Out- patients is a small proportion of centre activity. The main service was cancer. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the cancer section. The same staff worked across cancer and non- cancer services.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring and responsive and well-led.