The Newcastle Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We assessed all 5 quality statements from this key question for the service. This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to staffing in that staff did not receive the support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal that are necessary for them to carry out their role and responsibilities.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to good governance in that the service did not have effective systems and processes to assess, monitor and mitigate any risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of staff within the service.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People who use the service told us staff treated them well and with kindness. They told us staff were friendly and caring and gave us positive feedback about ways in which staff showed them respect and ensured that their dignity was maintained.

Staff we spoke with were focused on the patients experience and were caring and compassionate. They told us they cared for people and respected their privacy and dignity. They told us people’s needs and preferences were assessed prior to admission in the pre-operative assessment.

We contacted partners that worked with the service and no concerns were raised.

We saw staff were discreet and responsive when caring for people who used the service. Staff took time to interact with people and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. We saw people were treated with dignity, compassion and empathy.

We observed staff speaking with people discreetly to maintain confidentiality. Privacy curtains were available in clinical areas, and we saw these used to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff recognised when patients were in distress, and they were proactive in providing comfort and dignified support.

We observed cards of thanks from patients who had used the service.

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Unvalidated mandatory training compliance data showed equality and diversity training to be at 33%. Staff and leaders told us that the service did not complete training with regards to patients with dementia, autism, learning disabilities or mental health issues. The service did not exclude patients with these conditions from treatment.

The service did not have a process in place for staff to access interpretation and translation services.

The service had a significant proportion of patients with claustrophobia and MRI scans were tailored to meet their specific needs. Patients were encouraged to bring their own choice of music to help them relax during scanning procedures.

Staff were able to describe how they would make reasonable adjustments, such as allowing flexibility in people’s appointment times and allowing them to be accompanied by a relative or carer during their treatment.

Patients told us that the staff provided them with information and reassurance throughout their clinic appointments. They told us staff addressed their concerns throughout their patient journey.

People who use the service told us staff took into account their individual preferences and respected their wishes. They told us the risks and benefits of their scans were clearly explained to them so they could make an informed decision.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. We observed that consent for treatment was recorded in patient records.

Staff provided reassurance throughout the scan, they updated the patient on how long they had been in the scanner and how long was left. Patients had access to a panic button they could press at any time during the scan to summon help. Staff could stop the scanning immediately if the patient requested this.

Earplugs were available which protected patient’s ears and helped to reduce the noise. For those patients demonstrating heightened anxiety, staff provided choice and control to patients, such as the use of a call bell, trying the scan beforehand, bringing someone with them, and the use of music during the scan procedure.

Staff told us that patients could be accompanied to their appointments by a friend or relative and the service had a chaperone process to support people. A chaperone safety questionnaire was completed for each chaperone if they went inside the MRI room.

Staff told us they listened to people and promoted independence as much as possible, including offering flexibility around their preferred date of scan or treatment.

The service provided us with patient feedback data collated between January and May 2025. Whilst this data was limited it showed a 100% positive response rate to the question ‘Did you find your wait time for your scan appointment reasonable?’ from 14 patients.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them.

We observed staff regularly engaged with and monitored people during their scan. Staff were attentive and responded promptly to any queries or questions raised by people.

We saw staff providing reassurance to people and supporting them whilst providing care and treatment. The people we saw appeared calm and relaxed.

People who used the service told us staff were supportive and kept them informed throughout their scan. They told us they were supported with their emotional needs. They told us staff were calm and reassuring and answered any questions they had about their treatment.

The service did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centered care.

Staff told us that communication with the provider had been a major cause for concern and that emails requesting guidance often went unanswered for weeks. They told us that the provider offered little in the way of support and management.

Staff recruitment and absence management records were being poorly maintained.

Staff told us that access to training, appraisals and career development had been nonexistent in the previous 12 months.

Staff told us there were no clear structures to provide all staff with adequate and timely support following an incident. For example, there were no set structures in place for debriefing and staff felt they were left to manage their own emotional support.

Staff described morale as being low, however they told us their workload was manageable and that they still maintained a positive team culture based on delivering quality patient care.

Staff told us that whilst they felt valued by their colleagues, they did not feel valued by the provider.