The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Parkway

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Parkway House, Palatine Road, Manchester, Lancashire, M22 4DB (0161) 445 7451

Provided and run by:
Beacon Medical Services Group Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 11 March 2020

Beacon Medical Services Group relocated to Parkway House in 2015. The organisation began as a partnership between three GPs in 2006 and was based in Didsbury, South Manchester. Beacon Medical Services Group Ltd was founded in 2010 and the organisation relocated to purpose-fitted premises at Parkway House. The service is commissioned by a number of clinical commissioning groups in the North West of England and delivers services for patients across north, south and central Manchester. It also accepts referrals from outside these areas. The model of care used delivered care within a community setting and closer to home for the local population.

The service provides the following regulated activities:

- diagnostic and screening

- surgical procedures

- treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

There is a registered manager in place

We have not inspected this service before.

The service did not treat children and young people at this location at the time of the inspection. The hospital also offers audiology services, but we did not inspect these services as they are outside the scope of registration.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 11 March 2020

Parkway is operated by Beacon Medical Services and has been based from its current location since 2015. The service provides a minor surgery, endoscopy, diagnostic imaging service (ultrasound) and an out-patient service for ear, nose and throat appointments.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short announced inspection on 10 December 2019 and 12 December 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.

The main service provided by this service was surgery. Where our findings on surgery – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery service level.

Services we rate

We have not rated this service before. We rated it as Good overall.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

  • Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.

  • The service controlled infection risk well.

  • 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 completed and updated risk assessments for each patient and removed or minimised risks. Staff identified and quickly acted upon patients at risk of deterioration.

  • The service had enough medical, nursing and support staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and 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 used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.

  • The service managed patient safety incidents well.

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

  • Staff assessed and monitored patients regularly to see if they were in pain, and gave pain relief in a timely way.

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

  • The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development.

  • Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

  • Staff gave patients practical support and advice to lead healthier lives.

  • Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent.

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

  • Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers to minimise their distress.

  • The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people and the communities served.

  • The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services.

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

  • It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received.

  • Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service.

  • 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. The service promoted equality and diversity in daily work, and provided opportunities for career development.

  • Leaders had established some governance processes within the service.

  • Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively.

  • The service collected reliable data and analysed it.

  • Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services.

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

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • The service did not always adhere to its recruitment policy.

  • There was one example of a hazard substance not securely locked away.

  • Governance processes were not always consistently applied to all areas, including partner organisations.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Page top
Page top
Page top
Page top