Worcestershire Imaging Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patient’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring patient were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This is the first time we have rated effective at this location. We rated effective as good. This meant patient’s outcomes were consistently good, and patient’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We looked at 5 care records during the assessment that included the referral and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety questionnaire.

Each patient completed a safety questionnaire to identify any potential risks prior to their scan. People’s MRI scan requirements, suitability for the scan procedure, personal needs and arrangements for scan reporting were reviewed and discussed with them. We observed a radiographer going through the safety questionnaire with an anxious patient and explaining they would talk to them during the scan and that they could stop at any time.

The care records we looked at showed initial assessments and safety questionnaires were completed appropriately prior to commencing scans and people’s key risks and needs were reviewed and discussed with them.

Patients were advised to take any necessary pain relief prior to the scan if they would be uncomfortable lying down for the duration of the scan. We saw that staff assisted patients into comfortable positions for imaging wherever possible.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service had a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety policy, MRI safety screening procedure policy and local safety rules. We found these were in date and reflected best practice from The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) MRI Safety Guidelines, Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R 2017 Regulations, and Society and College of Radiographers (SCoR) MRI Safety Guidance.

All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, and references to current national guidelines. Staff understood how to access these. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and management newsletters.

Policies and processes took account of changes to the Royal Colleges guidelines and National Institute of Care and Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The registered manager told us they also worked clinically for the local NHS Trust to ensure the service was aligned with best practice and to keep up to date with any changes in national guidance.

Staff had access to radiologists for advice.

The service participated in audits that included, hand hygiene, image quality and medicines.

The service had local rules and MRI protocols, such as for hip and knee scans. We saw these were developed in line with guidance from MHRA, Institute of Physics and Engineering in medicine (IPEM) and manufacturer recommendations.

Patients had access to drinking water as needed or required.

Staff were experienced and qualified with the right skills and knowledge to meet patient’s needs. We saw completed inductions for new staff, minutes from team meetings, professional development sessions and 100 % compliance with yearly appraisals.

Meeting minutes were stored electronically and were accessible to staff.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Radiographers, radiologists, and other healthcare professionals worked collaboratively to ensure patients received effective and coordinated care. Staff supported one another well and described positive working relationships across different teams and disciplines. We saw and heard examples of strong teamwork built on mutual respect and trust. For example, during our inspection we observed radiographers contacting radiologists for advice to support patient care.

Staff worked with other agencies when required to care for patients. For example, there was a close working relationship with the NHS physiotherapy team. A specific NHS physiotherapy email inbox had been set up so that scan reports were not missed.

Staff worked closely with the referring organisations. If concerns or unexpected findings were identified from scans, staff knew how to escalate them to the referrer. This ensured staff could share necessary information about the patients.

There was a handover log used to pass on information between staff and information was shared at meetings and in a newsletter.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

The service was a small independent diagnostic provider offering short, appointment-based MRI scans rather than ongoing treatment or long-term care. The service focused on providing patients with information relevant to their scan, safety, and immediate care needs, relevant to each patient’s examination.

Where wider health or wellbeing advice was needed, patients were appropriately directed to their GP, referring clinician or another relevant healthcare professional.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment through audit. The service used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients. The service participated in relevant national and provider led clinical audits, including hand hygiene, medicine, patient satisfaction, image quality, cleaning and administrative processes.

The service had schedules in place for these audits and outcomes were shared with staff to drive improvement. We saw that administrative processes were changed following an audit to improve consistency in form filling out. Required information boxes were found to be empty. The service developed a specific checklist to follow, to ensure that information was not missed.

There was a process in place for the peer review of scan images and to gain assurance that scan procedures were carried out in line with national guidelines and the provider’s policies.

The service monitored that scans had been received by the relevant parties and that reports had been generated following standard operating procedures. This allowed administrative staff to follow up any scans that had not been reported on.

From April 2025 to March 2026, 4023 patients were scanned. Three patients did not attend their appointment. The registered manager had good oversight of the department usage and occupancy for patient flow.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. Staff contacted patients 48 hours before their scan to confirm attendance. When patients had their appointments cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible. In the year prior to our inspection the service cancelled 31 patients for non-clinical reasons such as scanner breakdown. Twenty scans were cancelled for clinical reasons such as MRI safety, where the scan was unable to go ahead. The referral was sent back to the referrer.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Patients told us they were generally seen within 10 minutes. Once in the department we did not observe any patients kept waiting.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff supported patients to make informed choices about their care and treatment and followed national guidance when obtaining consent. They understood how to support individuals who lacked the capacity to make decisions or who were experiencing mental ill health. Staff were aware of when capacity assessments may be required and followed the service’s policies relating to consent and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

All staff received and kept up to date with training in the MCA and knew where to access MCA and consent polices.

Where appropriate, consent was obtained in line with current legislation and guidance. During the inspection, we observed staff confirming patients’ consent before carrying out MRI scans. Staff checked that patients understood the purpose of the procedure. We saw staff seeking verbal consent before providing care or treatment. Patients were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care at every stage.

The service had a consent policy which was up to date. The policy referenced how staff should seek consent from young people under the age of 18 years of age, following legal and professional guidance. Patients we spoke to confirmed they had completed a safety questionnaire and had given their consent for the procedure they had attended for.

NHS interpreters were used to support patients to give informed consent, including for British sign language and face to face interpreting.