Archived: Sloane Diagnostic Imaging

Updated 1 May 2019

Sloane Diagnostic Imaging is operated by Alliance Medical Limited. Alliance Medical Limited provides imaging technologies to improve patient care and support NHS and independent sector organisations with on-going imaging requirement.

Sloane Diagnostic Imaging is a unit located on the ground floor of BMI The Sloane Hospital in Beckenham, Kent. In 2006, Lodestone Patient Care entered into an agreement with BMI to provide all diagnostic imaging services at BMI The Sloane Hospital. Alliance Medical acquired Lodestone Patient Care in 2009 and continued to offer diagnostic services to the local community under both NHS and private referral pathways.

The unit offered the following services: x-rays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT), fluoroscopy, ultrasound and mammography.

The service offered diagnostic imaging to both adults and people under the age of 18 years.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post for two years.

During the inspection we spoke with six members of staff, including the registered manager, radiographers, radiologist, and clinical assistant and administrative staff. We spoke with three patients and reviewed five sets of patient records.

Updated 1 May 2019

Sloane Diagnostic Imaging is operated by Alliance Medical Limited.

The service provided diagnostic imaging. We inspected diagnostic imaging.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced inspection on 08 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.

Services we rate

We rated it as good overall.

We found good practice in relation to:

• Staff were provided with the necessary training to allow them to keep people using the service safe from avoidable harm. There was good compliance with mandatory training among all staff groups.

• There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and skilled staff to meet patients’ needs. Staff were encouraged to develop in their role and were supported to attend further training.

• We saw staff apply infection control measures in line with best practice guidance. Hand hygiene audits had been undertaken and showed good compliance.

• Policies and procedures reflected best practice and national guidance.

• There were systems in place to ensure equipment was maintained and serviced, in line with recommendations.

• Staff understood their patients’ individual needs, and made every possible effort to accommodate these.

• Patient feedback was positive about the service. Staff maintained patient’s privacy and dignity in the unit and a chaperone was always available, if required.

• Staff spoke positively of the local leadership and felt engaged and able to contribute to improvement to the service.

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

• The service did not have an up to date radiation risk assessment in place at the time of the inspection.

• Staff had not all signed off the local rules to indicate they had read and understood the rules. This was not in line with the provider’s policy.

• Staff had also not signed to confirm they had read a number of core policies relevant to the area of practice, as required by the corporate policy.

• Patients did not have the opportunity to read the information leaflets available for each modality ahead of their appointment.

• The unit did not monitor waiting times in clinic, despite this being raised in several complaints in the last year.

• The service did not offer mental capacity act training for staff.

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.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London)

Updated 1 May 2019