• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: Brayford Studio Limited Also known as Brayford Studio

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Brayford Studio, Unit B1, The Point, Weaver Road, Lincoln, LN6 3QN 07436 269742

Provided and run by:
Brayford Studio Limited

Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Brayford Studio Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

12 December 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Brayford Studio is an independent ultrasound clinic based in Lincoln, providing scanning services to self-funding patients.

We carried out a short notice announced focused inspection in September 2023 to follow up concerns we found at our inspection in July 2023, where we rated the diagnostic and screening core service as inadequate overall. This inspection on 12 December 2023 was a further focused inspection to follow up concerns found at the previous inspections.

We only inspected some of the key questions of safe, effective and well led as this is where the breaches of regulations were found. We did not inspect the safe, effective and well led key questions in full; instead, we focused on the key lines of enquiry where serious concerns had been previously identified to see if improvement had been made.

We did not re-rate the service as we only looked at areas based around the breaches. We inspected the service to determine if the service had made improvements.

We found that:

  • Safe care was not provided at all times. The service did not control infection risk well, infection prevention and control audits were not robustly completed and did not identify all risks. Cleaning products were not appropriate for all procedures undertaken and there was visible dust and marks on clinical equipment. The service did not ensure there were effective processes to assess and respond to patient risk. There was limited reflection or evaluation of practice in relation to potential patient safety issues identified on previous inspections. There was limited review or evaluation of potential abnormalities shown on scans and subsequent referral processes to specialist services for follow up. Arrangements to improve the legibility of patient records were unclear and there were limited verification checks of patient information, leading to inconsistencies between paper and electronic records.
  • The effectiveness of the service was not monitored. Audits to monitor patient outcomes were not carried out in line with the clinical governance policy. There was no benchmarking or review of the quality of scans. Training and competency checks were limited despite concerns raised at previous inspections about the quality and interpretation of scans.
  • The service did not operate effective governance processes. There was insufficient evidence of assessment of quality, safety and monitoring of the performance of the service. The service lacked processes to identify and manage risk. There was limited evidence of continuous improvement and learning activities.

However, we found that:

  • Mandatory training had been completed and was up to date.
  • Single use ultrasound gel was available and gel decanting was no longer taking place.
  • Repairs to the treatment room door had been carried out.
  • There were no expired single use items within the clinic.
  • Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) previously found discarded in drawers and cupboards had been removed.
  • There was a clear policy for the management of records and the destruction of confidential waste.
  • Computers and ultrasound equipment were password protected.
  • The ultrasound machine was subject to quality assurance testing.

Following this inspection, we identified that while some improvements had been made, these were insufficient and we issued a notice of decision to the provider where we imposed the following condition on their registration the condition we imposed was as follows;

The Registered Provider must not undertake any form of consultation or screening with any new or existing service users, without the prior written permission of the Care Quality Commission.

In addition, due to the insufficient improvements made in the time since the initial inspection in July 2023 and this inspection in December 2023, we issued a notice of decision to cancel their registration. Cancellation of the providers registration took effect from 26 March 2024.

18 September 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Brayford Studio is an independent ultrasound clinic based in Lincoln, providing scanning services to self-funding patients.

We carried out a short notice announced focused inspection to follow up concerns we found at our last inspection in July 2023 where we rated the diagnostic and screening core service as inadequate overall.

We only inspected some of the key questions of safe and well led as this is where the breaches of regulations were found.

We did not inspect the safe, effective and well led key questions in full, instead, we focused on the key lines of enquiry where serious concerns had been previously identified to see if improvement had been made.

We did not re-rate the service as we only looked at areas based around the breaches. We inspected the service to determine if the service had made improvements.

We found that:

  • Staff did not provide safe care at all times. The service did not have accurate and complete care records and patients’ paper records were not stored securely. The ultrasound machine containing patient information was not password protected. The process for the destruction of records was not clearly set out within legal guidelines. Quality assurance checks of equipment were not recorded. The service did not control infection risk well, the cleaning of equipment had not been recorded, and cleaning products were not fit for purpose. An infection control audit carried out did not support the identification of all relevant risks.
  • The effectiveness of the service had not been monitored. Audits to monitor patient outcomes were not carried out in line with the service’s clinical governance policy. There was no benchmarking or review of the quality of scans.
  • Managers did not operate effective governance processes. We found insufficient evidence of assessment of the quality and safety and effective monitoring the performance of the service. The service lacked processes to identify and manage risk. The service did not seek feedback from patients and there was limited continuous improvement and learning activities.

However, we found that:

  • Staff had completed training modules including safeguarding children and adults’ level 3, information governance and general data protection regulation, mental capacity act, learning disability and autism awareness.
  • Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) risk assessments and product data sheets were available within the service.
  • A 5 year fixed wiring assessment had been carried out and a certificate of satisfaction available.
  • Portable appliance testing had been completed.
  • The manager provided evidence of medical indemnity insurance.

27 July 2023

During a routine inspection

We rated the service as inadequate because:

  • Safe care was not provided at all times. The service did not consistently assess risks to patients and information to support care and treatment was not always available or recorded. The service did not have accurate and complete care records and patients’ paper records were not stored securely. There was no policy for the destruction of records and the manager was unable to describe how this would be done within legal guidelines. There was no effective comprehensive programme of equipment and premises maintenance and checks to ensure safety. Not all training modules including safeguarding were up to date. The service did not control infection risk well, equipment cleaning was not recorded, and cleaning products were not fit for purpose. Some single use items of equipment had expired.
  • The effectiveness of the service was not monitored. There was no clear inclusion criterion for scans and the process for referring patients to other services was not always followed. Consent forms were not always properly completed with the requested information and there was a lack of evidence available to show the manager had followed this up. Not all consent forms had been signed.
  • The manager did not demonstrate clearly they ran the service safely and with good governance. The manager described a vision for the service but not a clear strategy. The service did not operate effective governance processes. There was insufficient evidence of assessment of the quality and safety and effective monitoring of the service. The service lacked processes to identify and manage risk. The service did not seek feedback from patients and there was limited continuous improvement and learning activities.