There was a comprehensive range of safety checks and other measures that ensured the care and safety of patients. Patients were involved in making choices related to their examination. The service was well structured to deliver a range of relevant and suitable information at all stages and to ensure consent to treatment. We observed that patients were treated with sensitivity and respect, allowing for discussion and questions about their scan. Procedures were in place to manage any clinical emergencies, along with appropriate fire safety precautions.

There was a good system of feedback from those using the service to monitor quality and allow for suggested improvements.

Patients were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment as the provider had thorough and well documented maintenance systems and checks for the scanner.

Staff received appropriate training on induction and on-going supervision as needed. There was a regular system of appraisal and mandatory learning updates for all staff.

We reviewed records and spoke to staff.We reviewed maintenance and repair documents for the scan machine.We spoke to one person who used the service.

We reviewed consent forms signed by people who use the services. We were told by staff that these forms were signed before people who use service received treatment.We were told by staff that care and treatment was delivered according to the patient's wishes.

People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment as the provider had equipment that was fit for purpose and properly maintained.

We spoke to one person who uses the service who told us that their needs were assessed and treatment was planned and delivered in line with the individual care.They also told us that they were aware of the complaints procedure. The provider had an effective complaints procedure.

The provider failed to give us notice in writing when the registered person ceased to carry on or manage the regulated activity.