• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: Clinical Diagnostix Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

10 The Drey, The Old Vicarage, Castle Donnington, Derby, Derbyshire, DE74 2JB (01332) 856984

Provided and run by:
Clinical Diagnostix Ltd

All Inspections

02 October 2018

During a routine inspection

Clinical Diagnostix Ltd has been established for approximately 10 years. Services provided include; mobile echocardiography (echo), ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG), ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring and, exercise tolerance testing to NHS and private patients in the community or hospital settings. Echocardiography uses ultrasound to visualise the moving heart, great vessels and valves and can include doppler (a specialist instrument) to establish blood flow. The procedure lasts approximately 30 minutes is pain free and delivered in a clinic setting. Ambulatory ECG is used to determine rhythm abnormalities. Ambulatory BP monitoring is useful in establishing white coat hypertension and exercise tolerance testing demonstrates what happens when a patient’s heart is put under stress. White coat hypertension is a syndrome whereby a patient's feeling of anxiety in a medical environment results in an abnormally high reading when their blood pressure is measured.

The service sees adults and children from the age of 16 years although the number of 16 to 18-year olds is very low (five in the reporting period August 2017 to August 2018) .

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology and diagnostic imaging framework. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 2 October 2018.

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. We do not rate effective for diagnostic imaging services.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

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

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Good induction processes were in place for new staff, 100% of staff had attended annual mandatory training updates.

  • Staff had the appropriate level of safeguarding training and checks were in place to protect vulnerable persons.

  • Reliable systems were in place to prevent and protect people from health care acquired infections.

  • The environment and equipment used was appropriate to deliver the service.

  • Staff could recognise when a patient had an urgent medical condition and systems were in place to refer to urgent medical services.

  • There were adequate staff levels to deliver safe care to patients and meet current demand.

  • Patient information was managed in a way that kept people protected from avoidable harmand records were stored securely.

  • Staff could recognise and report incidents. An incident management policy was in place and incident reporting forms were carried by staff.

  • The service adhered to evidence based guidance for echocardiogram, ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring, ambulatory electrocardiograph (ECG) and exercise tolerance test.

  • Ten percent of all echocardiogram reports and images per month were audited by an external auditor.

  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and expertise to deliver an effective service.

  • Staff liaised with other health care professionals involved in the care of the patient.

  • Staff understood the principles of consent and the Mental Capacity Act.

  • We observed staff treating patients with kindness and compassion, 100% of patients in the most recent patient survey said they were given all the privacy they needed during the test.

  • Patients described being ‘put at ease’, ‘made to feel relaxed’ and one patient said they felt apprehensive but staff helped them to relax and reduced their anxiety.

  • Patients and those close to them were given adequate information about the test, knew what to do next and when the test results would be available.

  • The service was delivered in locations which met the needs of individuals and appointment times were flexible.

  • All locations had good wheelchair access and interpreting services could be arranged with commissioners if required.

  • Waiting lists were short and met key performance indicator standards, clinics ran on time.

  • Report were sent to the referring clinician within two working days.

  • Leaders had the capability and capacity to manage the service. They could articulate the challenges faced but also, due to its compact size, respond quickly to patient and commissioner feedback.

  • There was a culture of openness and honesty which was demonstrated during our inspection. Staff felt valued and supported.

  • The directors held governance meetings regularly, service level agreements and contract meetings were held with commissioners which meant the service was reviewed regularly.

  • The service had a clear business continuity plan in place which described the action that would be taken in the event of a major incident or business disruption.

  • Information was managed securely and in line with relevant regulation.

  • The provider actively sought feedback from patients via an annual patient survey. The last patient survey was overwhelmingly positive in all aspects.

However, we also found the following areas for improvement:

  • The provider did not undertake hand hygiene audits.

  • There was no service schedule for the ambulatory blood pressure machine.

  • Four out of seven staff had not had a formal appraisal meeting with their line manager.

  • The provider did not have a duty of candour policy, and duty of candour was not reflected in the incident or complaints policies.

  • Staff meetings were not taking place.

  • There was no formal risk register in place.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with one requirement notice. Details are at the end of the report.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

28 November 2013

During a routine inspection

Patients were referred to the service appropriately and seen in a timely manner. Patients' care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance, as staff followed the British Society of Echocardiography (BSE) guidelines. Reports were also reviewed each month for quality and any issues with practice / report writing identified through this process. Staff were supported by a consultant cardiologist, who reviewed reports as required and provided support and advice.

The provider had good working relationships with other health care providers. Comments included "The team is always prepared to help with more urgent requests and the quality of the reporting and advice is of the highest possible standards' and "We have found it extremely useful to have a facility to refer patients for tests and for it to be done in a timely way with rapid receipt of the reports.'

Effective systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Procedures were in place to reduce the spread of infection between patients.

Patients were able to comment on the service provided either through completing the satisfaction survey or by following the complaints procedure.

During a routine inspection

Clinical Diagnostix Ltd carry out diagnostic tests on behalf of other healthcare organisations, at various locations such as independent hospitals and GP surgeries. Consequently we did not have the opportunity to speak with people who were having tests carried out.

We saw a policy was in place regarding consent. We were told that staff would explain to the patient what they were going to do before any test was carried out, and check the patient was happy to continue with the test.

We found staff were provided with professional development and systems were in place to check the standard of individual practitioner's work.

6 June 2012

During a routine inspection

Clinical Diagnostix Ltd carry out diagnostic tests on behalf of other healthcare organisations, at various locations such as independent hospitals and GP surgeries. Consequently we did not have the opportunity to speak with people who were having tests carried out.

We saw three completed patient satisfaction questionnaires and the responses on these were all positive. The questionnaires told us people had been seen on time, and given information about their tests before their appointment.

We spoke with two health care professionals who either commissioned the service or managed the outpatient department. Both health care professionals told us they were satisfied with the service provided. They told us they had not received any complaints from patients about the service, and any comments they did receive from patients were positive.

Both health care professionals were happy with the way the service was organised. They told us the systems in place from referral of the patient through to reporting back after the test worked well. They also told us the service was flexible and accommodated urgent requests for tests wherever possible. One of the health care professionals told us the staff who worked for Clinical Diagnostix Ltd were competent and knowledgeable in their specialist field, and well respected by their cardiology colleagues at the hospital.