Worcestershire Imaging Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patient could access care in ways which met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. The rating has remained good. This meant patient’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs. Staff completed learning disability and autism training. The training provided staff with the skills, knowledge, and confidence to provide safe, compassionate, and appropriately adjusted care.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. There was no hearing loop system installed but signers could be booked through the NHS. The need for translators or interpreters was noted at the time of referral and was booked ahead.

The service was inclusive of patients with mobility issues or wheelchair users. For example, there was designated disabled parking spaces and access to the building was step free. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner was accessible by wheelchair and if needed, staff allocated more time to enable them to effectively care for patients who needed assistance. The reception had a seating area and toilet facilities for patients and visitors.

Staff told us bariatric patients were treated sensitively. Staff would try to adapt equipment and positioning to enable the scan. If it was not possible staff contacted the referrer to advise them they could not carry out the scan. Staff were responsive by looking for alternative arrangements. Patients with additional needs would be given longer appointment times.

Appointment times could be chosen by the patient to suit their needs, music could be chosen and patients could bring someone with them. For example, we were told that the service worked with an autistic patient. The patient was offered a quieter, early morning slot and was given extra time. The staff were able to complete the scan.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked with GPs and acute hospital teams to ensure imaging was appropriate, timely, and integrated into the broader patient pathway. We looked at the clinical pathways and how other teams could access scans and reports. Consultant radiologists accessed the scan images securely either through the services image exchange portal or through Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). Following reporting, reports were returned electronically and uploaded to the patient record system.

Managers ensured private patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements. For NHS patients that did not attend the appointment, the referral was sent back to the appropriate person.

The service was open for appointments Monday to Friday from 8:10am to 6pm. The service was flexible with opening times and days to suit demand and patient needs. For example, they offered appointments on Saturdays, early mornings or later in the day to support access.

Emergency appointments were available throughout the week to accommodate urgent referrals.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients told us they received a good level of information both before and after their scan. This information was verbal and written. Information was available in alternative languages, and we were advised that written information could be produced in different languages on request.

Scanning information was available on the services website under a frequently asked questions section. This included what is an MRI, what preparation will I need, do I need authorisation, how much does it cost and what happens after the scan.

Patients told us they knew what to expect and were given enough information. The patients we spoke to knew how and when they would receive their results.

There was a children’s book available providing information to younger patients about having an MRI scan.

Patients who received contrast agents during scans were routinely provided with written post-procedure information. This included medication details, potential delayed reactions, and contact information for further support. This ensured patients had relevant safety information following their procedure, promoting informed aftercare.

Private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or partially), they told us there were appropriate and sensitive discussions about costs. The cost of scans was clear on their website and displayed in the reception area.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients told us they knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support. They also knew how to raise concerns or issues. Feedback could be provided in a range of accessible ways, either verbally or in writing. People, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

Feedback was gathered through a patient survey. We saw on a 2026 patient survey of 30 patients, the scored a rate of 91% for ‘very good’ in all areas. These included how helpful and friendly were we? Were all the questions you asked answered? How helpful did you find the brochure we sent to you?

There was evidence that changes had been made because of feedback, such as adding in an Mx title option on the patient’s forms. Mx (pronounced "Mix" or sometimes "Mux") is a gender-neutral title that can be used instead of Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Ms.

Complaints or concern were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in good time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. We reviewed the 2 complaints the service had received in the last 12 months and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy. We saw evidence, themes and trends were analysed and learning and service improvement was always looked at.

Patients were advised they could take any unresolved complaints to NHS patient advice and liaison service (PALS).

Patients were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. We saw an email response to a complaint detailing how the service would learn from their feedback. The service made changes in how communication needs were recorded, and they reinforced structured verbal safety checks, including additional prompts within documentation.

Patients told us they knew how to raise a concern and how this would be investigated. Staff were encouraged to respond to immediate concerns or complaints with a view to resolution. There were policies to support the complaints process. We saw evidence of complaints being acted on and learning from them was shared with the whole team. For example, a patient was dissatisfied with the MRI report outcome and believed the report had not provided meaningful information regarding shoulder symptoms and requested a refund. We saw evidence of the investigation, the outcome and response to the patient, the learning identified and action taken.

Staff told us learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement. The service promoted a culture of openness, reflection and continuous improvement, with the aim of resolving concerns fairly and improving patient experience wherever possible.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was accessible to a broad patient population, with step-free access, wheelchair-friendly facilities, and flexible appointment systems.

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. The service had a 2.5 week waiting target for routine scans. The emergency scan target was 1 to 7 days. We saw targets were always met and the patients we spoke to had their scan booked within days of the referral.

Private patients were able to book directly, and same day appointments were available for urgent referrals.

Interpreter services and reasonable adjustments were in place to support patients with language, cognitive or physical needs. The service did not monitor scan requests by demographic group, but staff told us there was a fair and consistent approach to scheduling. Staff contacted patients prior to appointments to confirm attendance and discuss any support needs, which helped reduce non-attendance and improve access.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff followed the services equality, diversity and inclusion policy, which outlined a commitment to embed diversity, promote equal opportunities and support non-discriminatory practices when delivering care and treatment.

Policies were in place to provide guidance for staff around the assessments required prior to admission to the service.

All staff had completed mandatory training in equality and diversity. Staff were able to describe the processes for ensuring equity including how they did not discriminate on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

The people we asked told us they were treated equally and in a non-discriminatory way.

Due to the nature of the diagnostic scanning services provided, it was not possible to clearly distinguish outcomes for individuals with protected characteristics. However, we reviewed available information, including incident data, feedback from service users, and complaints. This did not indicate any differences in the quality of care, adverse outcomes, or inequalities in experience for people with protected characteristics.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

We saw evidence of completed patient surveys. Patients who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff used NHS interpreter services and could use online translation tools.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.