St Hugh's Hospital

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

At our last assessment we did not rate effective. At this assessment we rated it as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. 

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

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 maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service had comprehensive guidelines outlining which people staff could safely treat, specifically identifying patients with low medical risk

When initial imaging identified concerns, staff followed a clear escalation procedure. This ensured patients were reviewed quickly by the referring clinician.

Patient notes were comprehensive, and all staff could access them easily.

The department displayed clear signage throughout. This warned against the risks of exposure to pregnant women.

Pre-assessments checks were comprehensive and adhered to (IR(ME)R) standards.

Patient records were stored securely.

The service plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance . We reviewed the policies on site, they met national guidelines and were in date with review dates in place.

The team could access the full range of required specialists. They helped ensure staff could meet patients needs.

Staff were experienced, qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. They had access to a consultant for advice when required.

(IR(ME)R) standards were integrated into policy and procedures available to staff on site.

The service work effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only need to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they move between different services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

Radiology staff worked closely with the referrers to enable patients to have a prompt diagnosis and treatment pathway. If they identified concerns from scans, they escalated them to the referrer. This ensured staff could share necessary information about the patients and provide holistic care.

Radiology staff could access the hospital’s Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) and HIS (Hospital Information System). This ensured patients’ information was available for ongoing care in the NHS.

The diagnostics manager attended the hospital’s morning huddles. They disseminated any relevant information to the team. They also attended scheduling meetings to ensure they had sufficient staff to support clinics and theatre lists.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 had relevant information promoting healthy lifestyles and support in the department.

The department had developed patient information leaflets as an online resource. Posters with quick response (QR) codes were available around the department. Staff assessed each patient’s health once admitted and provided support for any individual needs.

Patients told us they did not have to wait long for appointments. This meant they could have prompt treatment plans put in place.

The service routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes are positive and consistent, and that they meet both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 participated in audit and quality improvement work. The team had implemented an arthroplasty multidisciplinary group to review pre and post operative images and monitor post-operative patient outcomes. Staff monitored if patients who had joint replacement surgery remained the same, or if they had to change the procedure.

The department had systems in place to facilitate regular audits against IR(ME)R and Ionising Radiations Regulations (IRR) standards and requirements. Radiation Protection Advisors and Medical Physics Experts also carried out annual physical audits. The image quality audit had achieved 100% in the previous quarter as had the clinical referral audit.

The service tell people about their rights around consent and respect these when we deliver person-centred care and treatment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff had the appropriate skills and knowledge to seek consent from patients. Staff were clear on how they sought verbal consent and written consent before providing care or treatment. The consultant radiologists sought written consent from patients undergoing invasive procedures during the initial consultation, and again on the day of the procedure. 

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff followed the services policies related to consent, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty, as relevant.

Staff had received training in consent and explained procedures. We observed staff gaining informed consent from patients. They explained procedures in a way patients could understand and invited them to ask questions.

Consent was audited. When patients needed an x-ray, staff clearly documented they had discussed the risks of receiving radiation, the WHO checklist audit was 100% compliant for those undergoing interventions. They gave patients information leaflets reinforcing the safety briefing.

The department displayed posters throughout outlining radiation risks