Mediscan Diagnostic Services Limited is operated by Mediscan Diagnostics Services Ltd. The location has been registered to deliver diagnostic and screening procedure services since June 2013.

The location, which is also the provider’s head office, is the call centre, administrative and managerial centre from which the provider’s national diagnostic imaging services are managed. The provider delivers a range of services including ultrasound scanning and magnetic resonance imaging scanning, which are regulated by CQC. The location does not host any clinics on site. 

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short-announced inspection between 22 and 24 October 2018.

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.

We have not previously rated this service. We rated it as Good overall, because:

• Safe care and treatment was provided by staff that had received mandatory and safeguarding training appropriate to their roles. Staff were aware of how to raise safeguarding concerns, and appropriately assessed, responded to and recorded any relevant patient risks. Staff followed infection control protocols and equipment was appropriately cleaned. There were sufficient staff, who worked flexibly, to meet the needs of the service. Staff knew how to recognise and report incidents.
• Staff provided effective care in line with evidence-based practice, national and professional guidelines. Staff were appropriately qualified and had the skills and knowledge to undertake their roles effectively. They understood the need for consent and made adjustments for patients who required additional support. The provider monitored its clinical outcomes and used these to improve its services.
• Care was delivered by staff who were compassionate and helped to maintain people’s privacy and dignity. Staff supported their patients, and took time to fully explain the procedures being carried out and gave people time to ask questions.
• The provider continually assessed demand at its clinics, and planned its services to meet the needs of the local population. Staff took account of individual patient’s needs, including those who needed additional support or who were living with mental health conditions or learning disabilities. Clinics were planned flexibly to meet patient need, and patients were given a choice of appointments. Complaints were taken seriously, reviewed in the clinical governance meetings and learning was shared with staff.
• The provider’s leaders had the appropriate skills and knowledge to lead the service, and they had a vision and plans in place for future development of the service. Leaders could describe the potential risks to the service, and these were appropriately reviewed through the clinical governance and information governance committees. The service engaged well with patients and with referrers and there supported a culture of continual learning and improvement.

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

• The provider’s risk register scored and mitigated, but did not define, the impact of each identified risk.
• There were some limited gaps in the provider’s documentary recruitment evidence for consistent compliance against its recruitment policy.

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

Ellen Armistead

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals North