InHealth Waterloo

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 our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant patient’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 their needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. All staff had completed learning disabilities and autism training. Patients with autism, limited mobility, learning disabilities or living with dementia were identified at the time of booking their initial appointment so that staff could determine how to modify investigations and plan for a patient’s appointment ahead of time including ensuring the patient’s appointment slot was extended to meet their needs if required. Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. A portable hearing loop was available to assist patients wearing a hearing aid.

Music was used during scans to help patients relax; a mirror was available in one of the scanners to help patients with claustrophobia. Additional support could be provided by staff who could communicate with the patient from the control room throughout the scan. 

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.

Services were planned to take account of the needs of different people. Staff received training in equality and diversity and had a good understanding of cultural, social and religious needs of patients and demonstrated these values in their work. 

Staff could arrange interpreting services to support patients and their families who required this service . Staff confirmed that it was easy to book interpreting services. 

Leaflets about diagnostic procedures were available in the patient waiting area which could be provided in different languages,

The service had a portable hearing loop available for patients who had a hearing impairment. There was a sign at the reception desk notifying patients of the portable induction loop system available. 

The service engaged with patients who were anxious, nervous or phobic. Staff were also able to speak to the patient during scans through a microphone. 

The service had the capability to cater for bariatric patients. However, the service could not accommodate patients who could not self-transfer from wheelchairs due to the location of the centre being within a building that had stairs leading up to the entrance on the ground floor. The provider’s patient engagement centre would ensure that wheelchair users were booked into a different InHealth location. 

While the service rarely saw patients with learning disabilities or dementia, staff told us patients could bring relatives or carers with them to support them during a scan. Staff told us they would make sure in these cases, carers and relatives were appropriately screened to ensure they could safely support their loved one. 

There were no signs or boards to inform patients of waiting times once they arrived for their appointment however there was a screen in the main waiting area informing patients that the two MRI scanners were operating. Staff told us that patients were informed of any delays on arrival. 

The facilities and premises were appropriate for the services that were planned and delivered. There was a main patient waiting area which was furnished with wipe clean vinyl backed seats. Patients awaiting their appointment had access to drinking water and a tea and coffee machine which was free of charge in the patient waiting area. Hand sanitisers were available throughout the service. 

Missed appointments were monitored and patients were rebooked into the next available appointment when the service followed up with them about their missed appointment. 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients confirmed that they had received information about the scan they were having prior to their appointments. Any questions they had were answered by staff at the point of booking and on the day of the appointment. Information could also be accessed on the provider’s website. Patients received appointment reminders by text and phone call. 

All patients were able to choose an appointment date and the service offered flexible appointment times to all patients.

A range of information was available to patients as leaflets and also posters on the walls in the main reception, MR changing area and consultation rooms.  A patient information card was given to patients to take with them after the scan explaining what contrast they had and what to do if they experienced adverse side effects. Patients could also request a CD of their scan to take with them should they wish. 

People were made aware of the costs of scans where they were self-pay or had medical insurance.

Radiologists could view scans remotely so that results could be interpreted in a timely manner. Systems were in place so that information could be shared with the referrer securely and in a timely manner. In emergencies, scans could also be sent to the local accident and emergency department if immediate onward care was required. 

Policies were accessible by staff on the provider’s intranet page. Staff told us policies were easy to access and they were informed by email when policies had been updated. 

Information was provided to patients before their appointments. Appointment letters contained information such as contact details, directions to the service. 

The service 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.

Patients we spoke with knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable raising any concerns they had with staff. There were posters which informed patients on the processes around how to make a complaint to the service.

There were several ways patients and relatives could send feedback including filling in feedback forms using the electronic tablets at the main reception, scanning a QR code to fill in a form online or emailing the provider. 

The service had an up to date complaints policy in place, which outlined the process for acknowledging, investigating, and responding to concerns. 

Managers investigated complaints and identified themes. We looked at the complaints log for the service which showed the service had received 10 complaints in the last 12 months. Complaints varied from cancellation of appointments due to administrative error or late arrivals, delays in reports being sent to the referrer and patient discomfort in the scanner.

We saw evidence that complaints were investigated, learning was identified, and the service apologised to patients when something went wrong. Responses were sent within the timeframe set out in the provider’s complaints policy. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff at team meetings and daily huddles so that the learning could be used to improve the service. 

Patients were signposted to the parliamentary ombudsman (NHS) or to an independent sector complaints service if they felt their complaint remained unresolved. Information on how to contact these organisations was readily available and posted on the walls of the main reception area. 

Complaints were also discussed at quarterly governance meetings where operations managers across the InHealth community diagnostic centre sites would share learning from complaints that had been received and investigated.

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

The service was available 7 days a week from 7am to 9pm from Monday to Saturday and 8am to 8pm on Sundays. 

In the last year, the service scanned 9460 patients, an average of 39 patients a day. In the same period, a total of 669 (3.6%) Did Not Attend (DNA) their appointment. The service monitored DNA rates. The operations manager explained that they had begun to work on improving DNA rates by implementing a tracker to understand if there were any trends for the DNAs and putting in place various checks to ensure a patient attended. For example, a patient would receive two telephone calls; the day before and on the day of the appointment to confirm their attendance. They would also receive a text message 48 hours before, which was sent by the central booking team to remind them of their appointment. If a patient did not attend their appointment, the provider would call the patient and offer a new appointment date.

All referrals were triaged by radiographers who reviewed and confirmed patient suitability for scans. Patients were given a choice of appointment times that they could arrange to suit their schedules. 

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 as soon as possible.

Waiting times for scan appointments were monitored and the average wait from referral to scan was 2 weeks for NHS patients and 1 day for private patients. Routine investigation reports were sent to referrers within 5 working days for NHS and 3 working days for privately funded patients. The service achieved a 97% compliance rate across both reporting streams. This meant most patients could expect to receive their results promptly without delay for onward clinical decision-making.

The provider did not formally monitor the length of time patients waited in the waiting area to be scanned. The provider told us that patients were asked to arrive 15 minutes before their appointment so as to ensure there were no delays. If a patient was waiting for more than 15 minutes, reception staff would proactively check for delays and let the patient know how much longer they needed to wait. Patients we spoke with did not raise any concerns about the length of time they were kept waiting for their scan. 

Patients were emailed an MRI appointment pack which contained InHealth Waterloo’s full address and instructions on how to reach the site by car or public transport. The service’s website provided clear directions, transport advice and contact information for patients attending the service.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.