Nuffield Health Brentwood 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good, but it was combined with the outpatient’s department and was under a different methodology. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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

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 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.

The service worked in partnership with people to improve the quality of care provided. People who used the service told us their needs were considered, and scan procedures were undertaken in accordance with their expectations and preferences.

Staff discussed people’s individual clinical and personal needs with them prior to commencing scans.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. We saw staff demonstrating a good understanding of people’s needs and undertook scan procedures appropriately. We observed staff explain to patients clearly about their procedure e.g. undergoing an invasive steroid procedure.

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.

Patients were given the choice for referral for their scans to both the NHS and the Nuffield diagnostic imaging service but preferred the Nuffield service due to quicker access. The service carried out scan lists on weekdays and saturdays.

Services were planned and delivered to meet people’s needs. Scan referral requests were booked in advance, and this enabled staff to plan the staffing and resources required to undertake scan procedures before people attended their scheduled appointment.

Patients were met in reception, which was visibly clean and welcoming, prior to having their scan. Refreshments and a television were available whilst patients were waiting, although staff we spoke to were unable to identify if a hearing loop system was in use in this area at the time of this assessment.

Staff carried out daily huddles at the start of each day to plan activities and discuss any risks or issues. Staff rotas were planned to ensure there were sufficient staff and skill mix to maintain all speciality services. We were told that this was a challenge with maintaining appropriate staff levels at the time of assessment due to staff shortages in certain areas e.g. mammography.

People who used the service told us they were satisfied with the service and experience. No one we spoke to had experienced any issues or delays with their scan images or reports.

There were no specific or separate areas for children who used the diagnostic Imaging service. However, staff used toys, stickers and certificates as a distraction during a procedure.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patient information leaflets were available such as Nuffield Health Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Nuffield Health Computed Tomography information leaflets. However, access to these leaflets was difficult in the waiting area.

Staff could not provide information in a form that was accessible to all patient groups. For example, the service did not have information leaflets in languages other than English, or have large text available.

We saw notice boards included information for staff and people who used the service.

Information such as policies and guidelines were available in paper and electronic format. Paper records of policies and guidelines were held in clinical areas but were often found out of date. For example, in the CT area and in the mammography area. This meant that potentially out of date and incorrect information could be used when delivering patient care. This was escalated to the leadership team who took action to rectify this immediately.

Staff provided people with relevant information and discussed this with them, so they were well informed about their scan procedures. People who used the service were provided with the necessary information about their scan and that staff answered any questions they had.

Over 90% of diagnostic Imaging staff had completed mandatory training in cyber security and information governance. Scan images and reports were held securely using electronic systems and sent to the referring NHS clinician or another appointed clinician if they were privately funded.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always analyse complaints about themes and trends and share learning from complaints.

The minutes of the last three hospital governance meetings were reviewed. Complaints were mentioned on each occasion but there were no themes or evidence that any learning was disseminated to staff.

Some staff that we interviewed said that they did not always get feedback which would include learning from complaints.

When patients complained or raised concerns they received feedback. At the time of the assessment there was only one complaint related to diagnostic imaging on the complaint tracker for 2025 and this was still under investigation as it had only recently been reported.

Lessons were not always learned from complaints. We requested to review the response to complaints over the last 12 months. We were provided with three complaint investigations and responses. Two of the complaints related to when the information technology (IT) server was down for the radiology reporting system and the other complaint related to a financial issue for MRI scans. The complaints only partially demonstrated learning as the two IT related incidents were felt to be a system error but did not consider the impact on people who were affected by the IT outage.

People could raise any concerns or issues in a range of accessible ways. For example, QR codes were available in the diagnostic imaging reception area to allow patients to provide feedback on care they had received.

The hospital provided patient satisfaction survey results as part of our assessment. However, the data did not identify if there was any diagnostic imaging specific information.

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.

Patients could access the service through several routes, including GP referral, self-pay or through their NHS hospital.

People who used the service told us they received treatment in a prompt and timely manner and did not experience long waits when booking their scan procedure or when they arrived on the day of their appointment. They told us they were given clear information on the timelines for scan procedures and reporting processes.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example patients who had mobility problems.

We were informed that there was adequate radiographer cover with a 7 day on-call service provided.

The service monitored waiting times for the various types of scans undertaken and key performance indicator data was received to indicate how performance against national targets was being met. This meant that the service had a process to identify where improvements were required for access for patients.

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 had processes in place to identify barriers that could disadvantage different groups of people using the service. Most staff (96%) had completed mandatory training in Belonging - Equity Diversity & Inclusion in Nuffield Health

This training was underpinned by the Nuffield Health- Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (ED&I) policy which outlined the policy statement of the organisation for a fair and equitable workplace, and this linked with the associated ED&I Standard Operating Procedure, which staff followed.

People who used the service had their needs and preferences assessed and understood by staff. They were treated with equality and in a non-discriminatory way.

The nature of the diagnostic scan procedures provided by the service meant it was difficult to differentiate outcomes for people with protected characteristics. However, we looked at data around incidents and complaints, and this did not identify any disparity in care experiences, adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics.

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.

We observed that people who used the service had their scan procedure discussed with them by staff and were satisfied with this process.

The nature of the diagnostic scan procedures provided by the service meant most people attended the service once, unless multiple scans were specified as part of their initial assessment.

The nature of the services provided also meant there was no requirement for the service to provide routine after care support or follow up appointments. However, people were provided with information after their scan if they had any queries about the scan procedure or for any queries around reporting of scan results. The referring clinician or organisation was responsible for any ongoing care and treatment needs.