InHealth Diagnostic Centre Golders Green is operated by InHealth Limited. The service provides magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostic scans for low risk adults and young people over the age of 16 years.

We inspected MRI diagnostic facilities.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced inspection on 7 February 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 main service provided by this centre was diagnostic imaging.

Services we rate

We rated InHealth Golders Green as Good overall.

We found good practice in relation to diagnostic imaging:

• There were effective systems to keep people protected from avoidable harm.

• There were sufficient numbers of staff with the necessary skills, experience and qualifications to meet patients’ needs.

• There was a programme of mandatory training which all staff completed, and systems for checking staff competencies.

• Equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately and the environment was visibly clean.

• Records were up to date, complete and kept protected from unauthorised access.

• Incidents were reported, investigated and learning was implemented.

• The service used evidence based processes and best practice, and followed recognised protocols. Scans were timely, effective and reported promptly.

• Staff were competent and kept up to date with their professional practice.

• Staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach to patients and supported their emotional needs.

• Appointments were available during the evening if required.

• Complaints from patients were taken seriously and acted upon.

• The service had supportive and competent managers. Staff understood and were invested in the vision and values of the organisation.

• Risks were identified, assessed and mitigated. Performance was monitored and performance information was used to make improvements.

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

• The local rules which ensured work was carried out in accordance with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidance for MRI did not have a review date.

• The disabled toilet facilities were untidy in the afternoon of inspection. Staff were in the process of introducing regular visual checks of public areas.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals for London and South

All the people we spoke with were positive about the service. One person said, “it’s really nice, friendly and caring”. A second person described the service as, “quick and attentive.” People praised the staff with one describing customer care as, “excellent”.

People told us that they were involved in their treatment and provided with information. One person said, “they sent me an information leaflet and I knew what to expect.” A second person said, “they checked who I was and then explained what was to happen.”

Care records were securely kept and there was a clear and efficient system for receipt of referral, diagnostic check and then the sending of the check to another organisation which reported on the results. Records were kept online on the provider’s dedicated computer software system.

The premises, including the diagnostic rooms, were clean. None of the people we spoke with had concerns about cleanliness. We saw that there were protective gloves and clothing available, cleaning protocols, suitable arrangements for disposal of clinical waste and that staff had been provided with information and training about infection control. The equipment in use had been checked and serviced regularly and additional checks were made by staff on a daily and weekly basis.

The staff team worked together effectively and staff reported that they felt supported. Staff had personal development plans and had received a range of relevant training. There were a variety of systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service including regular clinical audits and ongoing surveys of people using the service.