We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 28 May 2019 to ask the service the following key questions; are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Eastbourne Healthcare Partnership provide diagnostic and screening services to patients referred to them from local primary care services. This includes x-rays and DXA scans (dual energy x-ray absorptiometry used to measure the density of the bone).

The practice manager of the GP practice based next to the location is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

As part of our inspection we asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received two comment cards which were both positive about the service that had been provided. We spoke with three patients who told us they had received a very good service from the provider.

Our key findings were:

• Patients were treated with dignity and respect and the service was delivered in a person-centred way.

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events. However, actions taken to respond to health and safety risk assessments were not always documented.

• Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.

• Information about services and how to complain was available both in the service in the form of a leaflet and on the service website.

• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted upon.

• Patients using local GP practices received direct access to the service. The prompt reporting on imaging procedures resulted in timely access to information for patients and clinicians.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Consider the access arrangements for children to the main waiting area and the implications for staff child safeguarding awareness.
• Review the recording systems for health and safety risk assessment actions to demonstrate actions have been completed within appropriate timescales.
• Keep the training matrix under review to ensure staff training is updated in a timely manner including the fire evacuation/drill update.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 6 February 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Horder Healthcare Eastbourne provide diagnostic and screening services to patients referred to them from local primary care services. This includes X-rays and DXA scans (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry used to measure the density of the bone).

The practice manager of the GP practice based next to the location is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

As part of our inspection we asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received 21 comment cards which were all positive about the service that had been provided.

Our key findings were:

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

• The service had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.

• Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.

• Information about services and how to complain was available.

• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted upon.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Review the arrangement for signage in the service to notify patients and visitors who is the radiation protection supervisor (RPS) and their contact details.
• Review the training for the RPS to ensure any updates for this role are undertaken in line with their training policy.
• Review the current recruitment procedure and policy to ensure the service records instances when a verbal reference is taken and the rationale is recorded when references cannot be obtained.

We spoke with five patients on the day of the inspection. We also spoke with three clinicians, two administrative staff and the registered manager.

We found that staff understood the consent process. Patients told us that they felt well informed and involved in decisions about their care. Patients were happy with the care and treatment provided. They welcomed good, local services that provided easy access to appointments for their care and treatment. Referrals to other health specialties were well managed.

There were safeguarding procedures and training in place. Staff told us that they felt well trained and supported for their roles and responsibilities. We found patient surveys had been undertaken and there was monitoring of the quality of the services provided.

People who used services at the Apollo Centre told us that they really valued being able to have important investigations locally. One person told us that it was literally "on their doorstep" which was really important as mobility was a problem. Another person told us that it was really convenient as it was next door to their doctor's surgery. This meant there was no travelling but also they knew exactly where to go. They felt this was important as sometimes "elderly people feel vulnerable going to strange places". They said it feels much easier when it is somewhere you know.

People told us that the appointments and reports came through really quickly . One person said it was as efficient "as going privately". They said this was really important as waiting for results that lead to diagnosis is a stressful time.

We found that people's views about their treatment were sought and people were given information about their care.

We found that not all staff were appropriately supported or trained. Some staff had not had an appraisal or safeguarding training.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor or assess the quality of service people received..