Nuffield Health Exeter 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

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.

At our last assessment there was not sufficient evidence to rate. At this assessment we have rated this good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good and people’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 patient’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Daily huddles were carried out in the morning to review the patients on the lists. Information from the huddle was then shared with staff so they had access to the information. Any specific needs could be planned and provided for the patients.

Staff said patients did not routinely require pain relief. Staff assisted patients into comfortable positions for imaging. Patients had access to drinking water as needed. There was a water dispenser for patient use. People using the service said they had access to hot drinks.

The service did not always have guidance and policies up-to date and in line with best practice. However, they planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Not all policies followed up-to date guidance and best practice. The local policy was not up to date and did not always follow best practice. The policy did contain the correct information relating to gender neutral pregnancy. However, the provider’s actual proformas used were in line with best practice and staff carried out gender neutral pregnancy checks. Also, the policy stated that family members could be used to interpret, which is not in line with best practice. Staff told us they would not use relatives to interpret for patients.

The service had operational procedure and local safety rules. However, local rules contained out of date information. The radiation protection advisors and supervisors were not correct. However, staff were aware of who the correct people were and how to contact them.

The provider had overarching policies and procedures including for the use of ionising radiation, were in line with best practice and legislation.

The annual Radiation Protection Adviser (RPA) audit was carried out in September 2025 and was found to be fully compliant with a few minor comments made. The audit refers to the level of compliance with the current regulations, standards and guidance relating to the use of ionising radiation in diagnostic imaging. It covers areas such as IR(ME)R 2017 procedures, protocols and records, general radiation protection records and equipment.

There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and newsletters.

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

Healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care. Staff told us there was good teamwork within the radiology department and the third-party CT provider.

The team also had effective working relationships with wider hospital staff members. The diagnostic imaging manager met with other heads of departments and leads to exchange information and cascade to team members.

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.

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

The service had a range of health promotion information available on the provider’s website. This included mental health, men’s health, women’s health, and cancer awareness.

The service provided people with information for different scans undertaken which detailed what patients should expect during the visit and how patients should prepare for their scan.

There was information available in the waiting area which included information to promote wellbeing, such as menopause awareness and men’s health.

At the time of our assessment, the hospital was running a month-long campaign to raise awareness of heart health.

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

The service had an audit programme to monitor safety and quality. There was a process for the peer review of images and reports to gain assurance that scan procedures were carried out in line with national guidelines and the provider’s policies. Records showed there were no discrepancies.

Patients spoke positively about the quality of the care and treatment they received. They told us the service met or exceeded their expectations, and they did not have any concerns around the quality of their images or reports.

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

Staff gained consent from patients for their care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care or treatment. People were involved in decision making at all levels.

The service had a consent policy which was up-to-date and provided patients with written information about the consent process prior to attending for appointment. The policy also referenced how staff should seek consent from young people under the age of 18 years of age.

Patients were sent an information leaflet explaining the procedure including what they needed to do prior to the appointment, when they arrived, and how they would be given results. Patients we spoke with confirmed they had completed a safety questionnaire and had given their consent for the procedure they had attended for.

All staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and knew where to access the current polices. Staff could describe how to access the policy on Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. They also received training in consent.

Chaperones were provided if requested.