Archived: Sussex MRI Centre

We reviewed care records and found evidence that people consented to a specific diagnostic procedure, after having discussed the risks and benefits of the procedure with their doctor. We found that staff used information from people's completed health questionnaires, to ensure that the people were suitable for the proposed procedure. We noted that there were defined procedures for relaying results of people's procedures to their doctors, and secure online communication tools were used to ensure that people's privacy was maintained.

We reviewed staff recruitment and training records. We found evidence of initial vetting and verification of staff and their qualifications, as well as continuous supervision of the staff. Staff told us that they felt well supported in their roles.

We reviewed the complaints log, and found that information on complaints received was appropriately documented. We saw that there was information readily available for people on how to complain, and what to expect from the process. People told us that they had no reason to complain, but would be happy to raise any issues of concern with staff or the manager.

At this inspection we looked at the providers action plan which they provided us with following our inspection on the 25 March 2013, we spoke with the registered manager and reviewed a copy of a recent training audit undertaken at the service.

This provided us with evidence that the provider had now ensured that there was a process in place to better monitor staff training to help ensure that staff received the necessary training and supervision so that they had the skills to support the needs of people who used the service.

We found that people were provided with information about their scans and were treated with kindness and respect by the staff. Information about patients was held confidentially throughout the service.

Although we could not verify that all staff had received formal training we found that they did understand the importance of protecting vulnerable patients and knew what to do if they suspected abuse.

The staff we spoke to enjoyed their work and went about their duties in a polite and professional way. However we found that some members of staff had not received a comprehensive induction and some had not received adequate training in mandatory subjects. We have asked the provider to take action to address this.

We found that the provider took steps to assess and maintain the quality of the service it provided and sought the feedback of patients in order to improve.