Nuffield Health Exeter 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 patients 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. However, 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 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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

Staff could access support from external interpretation services when required.

Both the internal and external mobile scanners were accessible by wheelchair and step-free access was provided. The reception area and the waiting area had a seating area and toilet facilities for patients and visitors. There was a baby changing and feeding room available.

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

Staff wore name badges and could be clearly identified. Name badges were black writing on a yellow background to improve readability for patients with cognitive or visual conditions.

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

The hospital held daily huddles at the start of each day to plan care, discuss risks and issues. Staff who were unable to attend received an email with meeting notes.

Staff ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

People we spoke with did not experience any delays or issues with their scan images or reports.

A patient’s image or reports were sent to the referrer to review and provide the results. All patient’s we spoke with were aware of the process and told us they were well informed.

The service was open for appointments from 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday. There was an on-call service out of hours. The service provided CT one day per week through another CQC registered provider which operated 8am to 8pm.

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. Staff told us they could arrange for information to be provided in alternative languages.

Information was available on the services website. This included an explanation of what an image or scan involves, how to prepare for an appointment and what to expect during the appointment.

People were made aware of the costs of any diagnostic and screening procedure, where they were self-pay or had medical insurance. Staff told us they would inform people of the imaging cost prior to a person attending if the scan was arranged at short notice from consultants. All people we spoke with were aware of costs. Costs and the services terms and conditions were listed on their website.

Staff received training in cyber security. Scan images were held securely on electronic systems and sent to the referrer securely. We observed computers being locked when not in use. Rooms were lockable and kept secure when not in use.

In the 12 months prior to our assessment there were 0 data breaches reported in the service.

The hospital displayed its previous CQC ratings in the hospital and on the provider’s website.

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

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 service displayed adverts across the department seeking feedback form people.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement. Complaints and concerns across the hospital were discussed in monthly clinical governance meetings. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, there were 2 complaints relating to CT scans. The service investigated and resolved these complaints with the patient and shared learning internally and with the third-party CT provider.

Patients could take any unresolved complaints to a third-party organisation or to the parliamentary ombudsman (if care was NHS funded) or to an independent sector complaints service and this information was readily available.

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

Patients could access the service through several routes, including GP referral, self-pay or through their NHS hospital. Images involving the use of ionising radiation were accepted from approved referrers.

The service monitored waiting times for each type of image or scan, At the time of our assessment the average wait for MRI, CT and mammography was 2 weeks, ultrasound was a week, and x-ray was available on the same day. Patients did not raise any concerns about the length of time they were kept waiting for their appointment. The service monitored the number of appointments that were not attended. In the 12 months prior to our assessment this was 0.08% of total appointments.

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

The service restricted access to certain types of scans and images for children and young people. MRI was accessible for those aged 14 years and older, CT was available for adults only. Ultrasound was for those over the age of 4. All radiologists performing scans on children and young people had to demonstrate they had necessary qualifications and experience.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged.

The hospital had step free access. The imaging area was on the ground floor. The mobile CT scanner was in the carpark outside the imaging department. This was accessible by use of a lift.

People found car parking at the hospital difficult. Most people we spoke with said that there were limited spaces which made attending an appointment on time challenging. Leadership was aware of the issue and had deployed a carpark attendant to support people.

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

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.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). This training was underpinned by the Nuffield Health’s EDI policy which outlined the policy statement of the organisation for a fair and equitable workplace.

The provider’s policies had a process to check if it discriminated against protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010. Each policy had an equality and diversity declaration to show the policy had been reviewed.

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 adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics

The provider participated in Patient-Led Assessment of the Care Environment (PLACE), which is a review of the care environment from patients and staff. In 2025 the hospital scored higher than the national average for dementia and disability care.

Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The nature of diagnostic procedures provided by the service meant most people attended the service once, unless multiple scans were requested as part of their assessment. People who required multiple scans told us the service arranged for images to be taken so they only needed to visit the department once.

A patient’s wish for staff not to attempt resuscitation was recorded in patients records. Staff knew how to identify a patient’s wishes.

Patients were provided with information about how they would receive results and from whom and any related follow up appointments. The referrer was responsible for any ongoing care and treatment needs.