Medical Imaging Partnership

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We identified one breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe environments: we saw uncovered power cables , creating a potential trip hazard, with unrestricted public access at the back of the mobile MRI unit. Staff stored equipment, such as fans, heating units, etc. in patients' changing room, although we were told these would be removed when the area was in use.

Numerous clinical processes were found to be out-of-date. The service's MRI safety policy did not include information on training regarding the effects of the static magnetic field on staff. Nor did it include information for staff on their own physical safety regarding their interaction with the static magnetic field, although we were told this was covered in the required training . Staff did not know where the MRI 5 Gauss diagram was kept, and it was not found in the local rules.

However, staff knew how to report patient safety incidents. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the organisation. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff carried out clinical and environmental risk assessments. The service had enough staff with the right qualifications and skills to keep patients safe. Staff received training appropriate and relevant to their role. The service used patient feedback to improve and investigated complaints. The service had leaflets for patients, which explained the various procedures and any risks or side effects.

This service scored 59 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff logged incidents on the company’s risk, quality, and compliance software. MIP shared incidents and any learning through newsletters, emails, team meetings, and weekly huddle meetings. Managers used CQC mock inspections as an opportunity for service improvement. Staff were up-to-date with their mandatory training. Clinical staff received modality and equipment specific training. Staff told us they received sufficient training to carry out their jobs. Staff also received a quarterly governance report on events/complaints/compliments/accolades. This contained lessons learned and changes implemented.

Staff discussed incidents and complaints at Clinical Governance Committee meetings. The service had an incident log, which contained incident details and learning outcomes. Each incident had its own unique identifier. The incident log did not contain information on severity of incidents, nor did we see a risk matrix the provider used. The provider had a complaints log, which recorded complaint details and any learning outcomes.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff had completed the required level of adult and children safeguarding training. All clinical staff had received level 3 safeguarding training and 2 members of staff had received level 4 safeguarding training. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and how to act if concerns were identified.

The service had clear safeguarding systems and processes in place to make sure adults and children were protected from abuse and neglect.

Patients felt staff had comprehensively explained procedures and had offered time to ask questions.

Additional clinical staff were present when some procedures, such as contrast scans, with recognised potential risks, were performed. Staff also rang patients following these procedures to ensure they had not experienced any side effects. In case of an emergency staff had received intermediate life support training and scenarios were conducted to help staff maintain their skills. Staff had access to emergency equipment.

The service had a resuscitation policy, which was comprehensive, outlining responsibilities of all staff groups in cases of emergencies. The provider employed Resuscitation Service Managers who had overall responsibility for the implementation and compliance of the resuscitation policy and were subject matter experts. The provider had a resuscitation committee with representation from medical, nursing, support, and paramedic staff. The service used the National Early Warning Score tool (NEWS-2) for adult patients. For paediatric patients the service used the Paediatric Early Warning Score (P-EWS) tool, which identifies paediatric patients at risk of clinical deterioration. Patients had access to microphones inside scanners. In the case of an emergency, such as sudden difficulty coping being in an enclosed space, patients spoke to let staff know. The service had leaflets for patients, which explained the various examination offered; for example, MRI, Xray, ultrasound, etc. Each leaflet explained the procedure and discussed any risks or side effects. The provider had a good oversight of clinical risk. Risk assessments included description of the risk, control measures in place and risk ratings. All were in date with clear review dates.

The mobile scanning unit was accessible to all. Warning and information signs were in place to alert others to the health and safety risk in the scanning environments. In one of the scan rooms we saw sharps boxes, which staff had signed and dated. Staff had access to spill kits in clinical rooms.

Some environmental risks had not been considered and action not taken to mitigate the risks; these included uncovered power cables creating a trip hazard and inappropriate storage of some equipment, although we were told this would be moved when the area was in use. We highlighted this to the provider on the day of the inspection.

There was a Magnetic Resonance Safety Expert (MRSE) who carried out annual checks of the scanning equipment. They also provided advice and quality checks. A MRI safety policy was in place which referred to the Control of Magnetic Forces at Work Act 2006 (CEMFAW). However, this did not include information on training regarding the effects of the static magnetic field on staff during their normal work. Nor did it include information for staff on their own physical safety regarding their interaction with the static magnetic field, although we were told this was covered in the required training.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.