Prime Health Harley Street

Updated 11 February 2022

Prime Health Harley Street is operated by Medical Imaging Partnership Limited. It is a private diagnostic imaging and outpatient clinic in central London. Facilities include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound and five treatments rooms to run outpatient clinics including, orthopaedic, gynaecology, physiotherapy and osteopathy. The provider serves patients aged 13 years and over with private insurance or self-funded. The clinic also serves NHS patients where contract with local NHS services were agreed and in place.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager and nominated individual.

The service provides diagnostic imaging and outpatient services and is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Diagnostic and screening procedures
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The service has not been inspected since it was registered with the CQC in December 2017.

On this occasion we inspected outpatients, diagnostic imaging and children and young people using our comprehensive inspection methodology.

Over the last 12 months the service saw 5641 patients of which 31 were children and young people.

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

Updated 11 February 2022

This is the first time we have inspected and rated this service. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Diagnostic team meeting minutes were not consistently recorded, and it was not always clear what was discussed.
• Not all policies were in date at the time of the inspection.
• Staff had received safeguarding training however; this was not to the correct level in line with national guidance.
• The service did not have paediatric trained staff to care for children and young people and keep them safe.
• The service did not take into account the individual needs of children and young people.
• The service did not have a formal written criteria by which they assessed and accepted children and young people into the service.
• The service did not have formal processes and policies in place to reflect caring for children and young people and reference national guidance.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for adult patients and keep them safe. The service-controlled infection risk well. Staff carried out risk assessments for patients and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and managers monitored the effectiveness of the service. 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 seven days a 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, families and carers.
• The service 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 adult 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. 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 continually.

The rating of this location does not follow the CQC aggregation rules to rate. As children and young people made up less than 0.5% of total appointments, we have overruled the aggregation rules.

Following the inspection, we sent the provider a letter of intent following concerns identified in the children’s and young people service. The provider responded with an action plan by the deadline set outlining actions they would take to improve the service.

Updated 11 February 2022

This is the first time we have rated this service. We rated this service as Inadequate.

• The service did not have paediatric trained staff to care for children and young people and keep them safe. Staff were not trained to a suitable level in safeguarding children in line with the Safeguarding Children and Young People: Roles and competencies for Healthcare Staff, Fourth Edition 2019 Intercollegiate Document.
• The service did not consider the individual needs of children and young people.
• The service did not have a formal written criteria by which they assessed and accepted children and young people into the service.
• The service did not have formal processes and policies in place to reflect caring for children and young people that referenced national guidance.

However:

• Staff completed a risk assessment for children and young people admitted into the service.

Children and young people are a small proportion of the service’s activity. The main services were diagnostic imaging and outpatients. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the diagnostic imaging and outpatients’ section.

Updated 11 February 2022

This is the first time we have rated this service. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed 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.
• Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.
• The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services.
• 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. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.

However:

• Team meeting minutes were not consistently recorded, and it was not always clear what was discussed.
• Not all policies were in date at the time of the inspection.

Updated 11 February 2022

This is the first time we have rated this service. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed 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.
• Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.
• The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services.
• 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. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.

However:

• Not all policies were in date at the time of the inspection.

Outpatients was a small proportion of centre’s activity. The main service was diagnostic imaging. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the diagnostic imaging section.