Archived: Harmonic Medical Sonography

Harmonic Medical Sonography is operated by Harmonic Medical Sonography Limited. The location has been registered to deliver diagnostic and screening procedure services since April 2015.

The location, which is also the provider’s head office, is the administrative and managerial centre from which the provider’s diagnostic imaging services are managed. In addition, the provider operates from several community locations across the country, providing a service through both primary healthcare and NHS institutions. At the time of the inspection the Manchester location did not host any regular clinics on site; however, there are facilities to see patients privately, including children.

The services move between local clinics on a rota system, providing a convenient and community-based option for patients who have been referred by their GP. In addition, the service runs several flexible clinics where the focus is accommodating patients who cannot make it in the normal hours of the week; for example, evenings, weekends and bank holidays. For patients referred by their GPs, these services offer fast access to a range of ultrasound scanning.

The provider delivers a range of diagnostic scanning and screening services. The most common procedures were ultrasound scans in the following areas; general medical, gynaecological, musculoskeletal, vascular (deep venous thrombosis), small parts for example neck, glands and lump scans.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short-announced inspection on the 27 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.

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

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.

• 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 to make adjustments for patients who may require additional support. The provider monitored its 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 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.

• 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 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.

• The provider could describe the potential risks to the service, and these were appropriately reviewed through the clinical governance committee.

• The service was committed to improving its services and developing.

• The service engaged with patients and with referrers and supported a culture of continual learning and improvement.

  Ellen Armistead

  Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)