The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: Alliance Medical House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

4b Dorking Road, Epsom, KT18 7LX (01372) 84087

Provided and run by:
Alliance Medical Limited

All Inspections

30 May 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risks well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available to suit patients' needs.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

22 June 2021

During a routine inspection

tstWe have not previously rated the service. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care to patients. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and had access to good information. Services were available six days a week.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for a diagnostic procedure.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients.

However:

  • We reviewed five patient specific direction (PSD) records. A patient specific direction is a written instruction, signed by a prescriber for medicines to be supplied and/or administered to a named patient after the prescriber has assessed the patient on an individual basis. Of these, three of the PSD forms had the radiologist’s signature but no printed name.
  • Not all staff were aware of the medicines stored on site and the medicines management policy needed updating to include all the PSD medicines kept on site.
  • The name of the radiographer taking consent could not always be assured. We reviewed five consent forms and three had the radiographer's signature but no printed name..
  • The location’s website needed updating as it referenced x-ray and ultrasound scans which the service no longer undertook.

17 September 2014

During a routine inspection

When we visited the imaging centre, a number of people were attending for MRI scans. There were no people attending for ultrasound scans or X-rays on the day of our inspection.

We spoke with four people who had used the service, three members of staff, the registered manager and one of the radiologists.

We found that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe and well looked after. There were systems in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

The service was clean and hygienic. One person told us 'it is all clean and tidy'.

Systems were in place to ensure that staff were well qualified to carry out their roles.

The service operated efficiently. One person told us 'I arrived early and was seen immediately'. We saw that people were seen promptly, understood their procedures and how and when they would receive the results of their tests. People told us that they felt well looked after while having their scans. One of the people we spoke to said 'it has all been fantastic'.

People were supported by attentive and professional staff. Staff explained tests and gave reassurance during MRI scans. A person told us 'they are all very friendly'.

People were able to select from a wide choice of music to listen to while having their scan. 'They put me at my ease' another person said.

People were asked to complete a questionnaire following their scan. There was an effective complaints process in place. People's views were taken into account by the management to improve their service.

People who used the service and staff working at the centre told us that they felt comfortable to speak out if they were unhappy.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. We observed that the staff and visiting radiologist had a good rapport with the management at the imaging centre.

We found that staff employed by the provider had been recruited following appropriate vetting procedures to ensure that they were appropriately qualified and able to undertake their roles.

5 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to five people who had a MRI scan during our visit. All of them spoke positively of their experience and the care provided to them by staff. One person told us "It is a nice place and easy to park. I have been seen on time and can't fault the care I have received."

We found that people were provided with information about the tests and procedures and were treated with courtesy and respect by all the staff. Information about patients was held confidentially throughout the service.

We found that staff understood the importance of protecting vulnerable patients and knew what to do if they suspected abuse.

The staff we spoke to were trained, supervised and supported and went about their work in a calm and professional manner.

We found that the provider took steps to assess and monitor the quality of the service it provided. It also undertook a wide range of audits to manage the risks associated with its activities and actively sought feedback from patients in order to improve.