Community Imaging Services Limited is an independent ultrasound service . The service registered with the CQC in April 2018 and began delivering services in October 2018.

The service has never been previously inspected.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection on 4 April 2019.

We rated the service as good overall.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Managers in the service monitored staff compliance with mandatory training in key skills and made sure everyone had completed training specific to their roles to support the delivery of safe care.

• Staff understood safeguarding processes and were confident to escalate concerns.

• The maintenance and use of equipment kept people safe.

• The service considered and took actions to lessen risks to patients.

• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, and training to provide the right care and treatment. Employment and qualification checks were carried out on all staff.

• Peoples’ individual care records were completed and managed in a way that kept people safe.

• The service provided care and treatment that was based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.

• Throughout our inspection we saw that patients were treated with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.

• The service planned and delivered services in a way that met the needs of patients. The importance of flexibility, choice and continuity of care was reflected in the service provided.

• The service took account of patient’s individual needs.

• People could access the service when they needed it. Waiting times from referral to treatment were in line with good practice.

• Leaders of the service had the right skills and experience to run the service.

• The managers across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.

• The service managed and used information to support its activities, using secure electronic systems with security safeguards.

However, there were areas where the service needs to make improvements:

• All staff did not consistently follow hand hygiene requirements in line with the service’s infection prevention control policy.

• Patient consent for procedures was not consistently documented by all staff, line with best practice guidance.

• There was information contained in the accident and incident reporting, and risk management policies and procedures, which provided conflicting information to staff.

• There was not a formalised process in place to minute all meetings, including staff meetings within the service, and meetings between the service and the gynaecology ‘one-stop shop’ provider.

• There was limited engagement activity within the service. Minimal patient and staff feedback was gathered, in order to inform service improvements.

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

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals