The North Tyneside magnetic resonance imaging service was provided by a private company called InHealth. The unit was one of four magnetic resonance imaging centres within the local NHS trust where InHealth provided magnetic resonance imaging services. The North Tyneside magnetic resonance imaging centre was located within the North Tyneside General Hospital. There were clear signs for patients to follow from the main hospital entrance to the magnetic resonance imaging centre reception area, access could also be gained through a linked a corridor from the radiology department. The unit consisted of a reception area, an administration office, a radiologist reporting room, a unisex patient toilet and an operational manager’s office. Along the corridor from the manager’s office was a technical equipment room which was a restricted area.

From the reception area was a swipe key fob controlled door which led into the restricted area which comprised of a staff kitchen, disabled patient toilet, two patient changing cubicles, clinical area, the scanner room and control room.

InHealth were working towards accreditation with the Imaging Services Accreditation Scheme (ISAS).

Staff on full time contracts included, an operations manager, superintendent magnetic resonance imaging radiographer, two senior magnetic resonance imaging radiographers, two magnetic resonance imaging radiographers, a trainee magnetic resonance imaging radiographer, a trainee (post graduate) magnetic resonance imaging radiographer and an administration services manager.

There were three 1.83 whole time equivalent (WTE) patient administrators on part time contracts. One additional senior radiographer and patient administrator were on zero hours contracts.

Magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic services were provided for the local NHS trust, Northumbria CCG patients and private referral patients. The service was open seven days a week, Monday to Sunday except for Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day.

The service was accredited by the following national bodies;

• ISO 9001:2015 which specified requirements for a quality management system when an organisation needed to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide products and services that met customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements,

• ISO/IEC 27001:2013 specified the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organisation,

• Improving Quality in Physiological Services is a professionally led accreditation scheme with the aim of improving services, care and safety for patients undergoing physiological tests, examinations and procedures.

• United Kingdom Accreditation Service accreditation for Improving Quality in Physiological Services offered the benefits of sharing best practice and the opportunity to enhance efficiency with evidence for local leverage.

Accreditation also brings national recognition to the service with a badge of quality and Investors in People which was a standard for people management, offering accreditation to organisations that adhered to the Investors in People standard.

The service was registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Diagnostic and screening procedures.

Activity (November 2017 to November 2018)

• In the reporting period November 2017 to October 2018 the service carried out 7336 magnetic resonance imaging scans, 6789 were NHS patients and 11517 different areas were scanned, 243 were other NHS patients which were patients referred by a general practitioner or clinical commissioning group and those referred for medicolegal examinations, and 296 areas were scanned, 264 were private patients and 404 different areas were scanned and 40 were other patients where 41 areas were scanned.

• 246 of patients scanned were children aged under 19 years during the reporting period

• Track record on safety

• No Never events

• No clinical incidents, no incidents with harm, one with low harm, none with moderate harm, none with severe harm and no deaths.

• There were no reports of serious injuries

• No incidents reportable under the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations.

•  No complaints were recorded.

We spoke to six people who had used the service and they told us the procedure had been thoroughly explained and they had been asked for their consent. Comments included, "I filled in a form and the staff went through it with me when I arrived" and "I filled in a form that asked me questions about my health and whether I agreed to have the scan".

People were complimentary about the care and support they had received at the centre. They said "It was a very good service all round", "The whole service was very good" and "the staff were polite and explained everything to me".

The provider had taken had taken reasonable steps to protect people from abuse and to prevent abuse happening.

People told us the staff were caring and supportive. We found that staff received appropriate training and development to deliver care and treatment to an appropriate standard.

The provider had a system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.

In this report, the names of registered managers appear who were not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their names appear because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We spoke to four people who had used the service and they told us the procedure had been thoroughly explained and their privacy and dignity had been respected. Comments included, "I appreciate the treatment and care I was given" and "They explained everything and were reassuring."

People were complimentary about the care and support they had received at the centre. They said, "My appointment was right on time" and "Everything was absolutely fine."

We saw evidence that appropriate equipment was provided to meet people's needs and this was adequately serviced and maintained.

People told us the staff were caring and supportive. We found that staff received appropriate training and development to deliver care and treatment to an appropriate standard.

There were leaflets and information provided in the reception area to inform people about the complaints procedure. The people we spoke with confirmed they were satisfied with the service and had no complaints.