Archived: Cheltenham Nuffield Alliance CT Unit

Updated 9 March 2020

Cheltenham Nuffield Alliance CT is operated by Alliance Medical Limited. The service first opened in July 2013 and is a Computed Tomography (CT) scanning service based within a private hospital in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. The service primarily serves Cheltenham and the communities surrounding Gloucestershire. Most referrals the service receive are from consultants working within the private hospital where it is based, although they do receive referrals from local GP’s and Alliance Medical National Accounts.

The service carries out a range of CT scans and CT colon scans.

The service has had a registered manager in post from 23rd November 2015. The current registered manager has been in post since 2018.

The service was registered to provide diagnostic and screening procedures and had not been previously inspected.

Updated 9 March 2020

Cheltenham Nuffield Alliance CT Service is operated by Alliance Medical Limited. The service is based within the imaging department of Cheltenham Nuffield hospital (the host site). The service provides diagnostic imaging, specifically computed tomography (CT) imaging for adults and children over 12 years old. Most patients were referred through the host site and paid privately. The service also provided support to the local NHS trust.

The location comprises of a small waiting area and changing rooms, an office for staff (shared with the host site imaging team) and the imaging room which houses the Computed tomography (CT) scanner.

The service registered with the Care Quality Commission in 2013. We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short notice announced inspection on 6th January 2020.

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

This was the first time this service had been inspected. We rated the service as good overall.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Staff provided good care and treatment.
• 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 planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and 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 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. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

However, we found areas of practice that required improvement:

• Fire equipment, that was maintained by the host site but would be used by the service in the event of a fire, had not received an annual service.
• Not all staff were trained to the required level in safeguarding for children.
• Out of date policies were stored in folders in the office area.
• Some Alliance Medical Limited policies had not had annual review and were out of date.

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.

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.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (South Region)

Updated 9 March 2020

We rated this service good because it was safe, caring, responsive and well led. We do not rate effective for this type of service.