Buckshaw Hospital

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 this inspection, we found the service planned and delivered care in a way that met patients’ needs. Services were organised effectively, and patients were able to access care in a timely way. Waiting times were monitored, and action had been taken to reduce delays, including the introduction of additional scanning sessions.

Staff took account of patients’ individual needs and made reasonable adjustments where required. This included supporting patients with anxiety, providing flexible appointments and arranging interpreters where needed. The service worked with partners to ensure continuity of care and reduce disruption when patients moved between services.

Patients were encouraged to provide feedback and raise concerns. Staff responded appropriately, and feedback was used to improve the service.

At our previous inspection, this area was rated good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good. This meant patients’ needs were met through the effective organisation and delivery of care.

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.

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

Staff delivered care that was responsive to people’s individual needs, including those with anxiety, communication needs and additional support requirements. Patients told us they felt listened to, supported and treated as individuals

Staff made personalised adjustments where required. This included offering alternative appointment times, “feet first” positioning during MRI and pre-visit opportunities for patients who required additional reassurance. A private counselling room was available to support discussions of sensitive information in a discreet environment.

Staff recognised and responded to communication needs with clear protocols in place for patients who may require additional support.

The service environment supported person-centred care, with accessible facilities and appropriate privacy measures. These enabled staff to meet a range of patient needs and support a safe and comfortable experience

Staff told us they felt confident in adapting care to meet individual needs, and patients said they felt safe and well cared for.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 to maintain continuity of care and minimise disruption for patients. Leaders had oversight of activity and monitored cancellations, including those occurring within 24 hours of scheduled appointments.

Cancellations were infrequent and only took place when it was not safe or feasible to proceed, such as during equipment failure or unexpected staff sickness. For example, in the previous three months, MRI appointments on two days were cancelled due to issues affecting scanner availability, and CT appointments on one day were cancelled due to staff sickness.

When disruptions occurred, they were managed appropriately, with clear communication to patients and prompt rebooking. Incidents were escalated within the service to minimise impact on patient care.

To reduce delays and support continuity of care, leaders introduced additional scanning sessions, including Sunday lists. These were used to prioritise patients whose appointments had been postponed, including urgent cases, supporting timely access to diagnostic services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

A range of information was available to patients to support them before and after their imaging. Patients were provided with information about their procedure, preparation requirements and how results would be communicated.

Where a patient’s first language is not English, information was provided in their chosen language. The service would also provide information in larger fonts and braille. Information was also made available through digital platforms designed to support accessibility.

Staff ensured that important clinical information was shared promptly and safely with referring clinicians. Significant or unexpected findings were escalated through a structured alert system, which required acknowledgement by the referring clinician to ensure results were reviewed and acted upon.

The system supported secure and timely communication, with a clear record of alerts, responses and associated clinical documentation. This ensured referrers had access to all relevant information required to support ongoing patient care and continuity of treatment.

Staff received relevant patient information at the point of referral, including details such as mobility needs. This enabled staff to plan examinations safely, make appropriate adjustments and support patients during their visit.

Staff told us they ensured information was shared appropriately to support safe decision-making and continuity of care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns or make complaints about their care. Patients told us they felt listened to, respected and comfortable asking questions during their appointments.

Staff encouraged people to share concerns or anxieties and worked with them to plan their care. Patients valued having time and space to discuss sensitive information privately and told us staff took time to explain procedures and options clearly.

Staff understood how to respond to concerns and described resolving issues at a local level where possible before escalating through formal processes if required. Feedback from patients was gathered regularly and reviewed through established systems.

We reviewed a complaint relating to the service and found that responses were provided in a timely manner. The patient received an initial response from the Hospital Manager within one week, which was within the provider's 28-day response timeframe. The response was compassionate, addressed the concerns raised, and demonstrated an appropriate understanding of the patient's experience.

Staff told us that feedback, including complaints, was shared during team meetings and safety huddles. This supported shared learning and improvements in practice.

Management described clear processes for escalation of unresolved complaints. Where required, patients could refer complaints to an independent complaints adjudication service or the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Patients were informed about how to raise concerns or complaints, and staff told us they would support patients in doing so where required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Managers monitored access to the service and worked to ensure patients received care in a timely way. The service delivered NHS-funded care under Patient Choice arrangements and followed national Referral to Treatment (RTT) standards, which required patients to be treated within 18 weeks from referral.

Waiting times were monitored through performance dashboards. At the time of inspection, average waiting times were 2.9 weeks for CT (3 weeks NHS and 2.6 weeks private), 5.9 weeks for MRI (7.7 weeks NHS and 2.8 weeks private), 2.9 weeks for ultrasound (3.6 weeks NHS and 1.5 weeks private), and 3 weeks for mammography. These times supported timely access for most patients.

Leaders maintained oversight of activity and patient flow and took action to reduce delays where required. Additional scanning sessions, including weekend lists, had been introduced to manage demand and improve access to imaging services. The CT service was operating three days per week, with capacity monitored against demand.

Systems were in place to identify and support patients who required additional assistance. Information from referral and electronic systems enabled staff to identify patients with communication needs, disabilities, mental health conditions or cognitive impairment in advance of their appointment. This allowed staff to plan and provide appropriate support and adjustments.

The service followed an equality and human rights policy and supporting frameworks to meet the needs of patients with additional requirements, ensuring equitable access to care.

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

The service monitored patient experience to identify potential inequalities in care and outcomes. Feedback was reviewed regularly, including patient surveys and complaints, to identify any differences in experience and areas for improvement.

Staff were aware of health inequalities within the local population and described how they addressed these through community engagement and health promotion activities. The service considered patients’ individual needs, including religious and dietary requirements, during pre-operative assessment. Patients with additional needs were discussed at multidisciplinary meetings prior to attendance to ensure appropriate support was in place.

Systems were in place to support patients with additional needs and ensure equitable access to services. This included providing accessible information, communication support and reasonable adjustments where required. Staff used available information to deliver care in a way that met individual needs.

The service demonstrated a commitment to accessible information. A website accessibility audit had been undertaken, showing compliance with recognised accessibility standards. The website supported features such as screen readers, zoom functionality and speech recognition, improving access for people with visual or communication impairments.

Where feedback identified areas for improvement, actions were taken to address these and improve patient experience.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and understood the next steps in their pathway. Most people attended the service for a single diagnostic appointment, and staff ensured patients were clear about the purpose of their scan, what to expect during the procedure and how their results would be shared.

Patients told us staff explained the reporting process and likely timescales for results, helping them understand what would happen following their appointment. This supported patients to feel informed and prepared for the next stage of their care.

As a diagnostic service, routine aftercare or follow-up appointments were not usually required. However, patients were provided with information on how to access their results through their referrer and who to contact if they had any questions. Staff told us they encouraged patients to seek clarification if needed, ensuring patients felt supported after leaving the department