The Scan Clinic is operated by Sonology Medical Ltd. The service provides ultrasound diagnostic facilities for adults and young people aged 16 and older.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection 5 February 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 hospital was ultrasound.

Services we rate

This was the first time we had rated this service. We rated it as good overall.

We found good practice in relation to diagnostic imaging:

• Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed staff treated them well and with kindness.

• The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.

• The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people. Facilities were appropriate to patients’ needs.

• People could access the service when they needed it and patients were offered a choice of appointment times and could book next-day appointments when available.

• The service improved service quality and had defined clinical governance processes.

• The service engaged well with patients and staff to plan and manage appropriate services.

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

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

• Although staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, staff were not clear on processes they would use to report safeguarding. The service did not have access to a level 3 safeguarding lead for children and vulnerable adults and we were not assured staff understood their duty to report female genital mutilation (FGM). Staff completed a FGM course following our inspection.

• The service was not registered with central alerting system to receive patient safety alerts.

• Although the service had many risks listed on their risks assessments with action plans, we found they were not always fully realised.

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 one requirement notice. Details are at the end of the report.

Dr Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)