Global Diagnostics Limited - The Global Clinic Norwich is operated by Global Diagnostics Limited. The service is located in the grounds of Colney Hall on the outskirts of Norwich. The service has four ultrasound scanning rooms, an x-ray room, three consulting rooms, a reception and waiting area. The service also provides magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from a mobile van which remains permanently parked within the Colney Hall grounds.

The Global Clinic Norwich also provides services provided from eight satellite clinics held at five General Practitioner (GP) practices and three category B and C prisons.

The service provides diagnostic imaging to NHS and private patients aged 16 years and above.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 30 January 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.

The only service provided at this location was diagnostic imaging.

Services we rate

This was the first time we have rated this service. We rated it as Good overall.

• The Staff understood how to protect patients from avoidable harm, and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.

• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to provide the right care and treatment.

• Information leaflets were provided in the service for patients on what the scan would entail and what was expected of them prior to their scan.

• Staff cared for patients with compassion. Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress. Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.

• The service planned and provided services to meet the needs of local people whilst taking into account the patient’s individual needs.

• Patients could access the service in a timely manner.

• The service treated concerns and complaints seriously and sought patient feedback through a variety of methods.

• Written feedback from patients was consistently positive.

• The service had a clear mission statement in place with workable plans to turn it into action.

• Managers across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• Equipment such as a wheelchair and trolley in MRI unit were not labelled as ‘magnetic resonance (MR) conditional’ or ‘MR safe’, to indicate that these pieces of equipment were safe to use in an MR environment as per the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) safety guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging equipment.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

People’s needs were assessed and their care and treatment was provided in line with their individual care pathway. This and the other evidence reviewed showed us that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

The care and treatment pathways seen showed us that the provider worked closely with both NHS primary care and acute hospital services. This meant that people’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services.

We saw evidence of duty rotas and forward planning to ensure that staffing levels were linked to the number of referrals received at each location. Staff spoken with told us that these systems worked well and ensured that staff received adequate notice about their work commitments. This showed us that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

We noted that the provider was currently investigating four complaints and that these were being managed in line with their policies and procedures. This demonstrated to us that there was an effective complaints system available.

We reviewed in detail the treatment records for four people. These showed us that that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because the records kept by the provider were accurate and fit for purpose.

It was inappropriate to talk with people using this service as they were having consultations, receiving treatment or undergoing diagnostic procedures. We reviewed the feedback systems collated by the provider and noted that the patient satisfaction survey results were positive about the service provided.

We reviewed four care pathways and evidence was seen that informed consent had been sought and subsequently recorded. This showed us that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The individual care pathways seen were linked to the specific diagnostic or treatment procedure carried out. This showed us that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

Maintenance records demonstrated that all of the equipment used was being maintained in line with the manufacturers’ requirements. This showed us that the people were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment. Evidence was seen of the steps taken by the service when additional training or support needs had been identified. This demonstrated that the staff working in this service had received appropriate professional development. We saw that clinical audits were carried out on 10% of all diagnostic episodes and these demonstrated positive findings and showed us that the provider assessed and monitored the quality of their services.