The Newcastle Clinic

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 assessed all 7 quality statements from this key question for the service. This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to receiving and acting on complaints as they did not have an effective and accessible system for identifying, receiving, handling and responding to complaints from people using the service.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

People who used the service told us their needs and preferences were considered. They told us their care and treatment were person-centred and focussed on their needs. They also told us appointments were booked at times that suited them.

Staff told us people’s needs and preferences were assessed as part of the initial referral and consultation process and this enabled them to plan and carry out diagnostic imaging in accordance with their wishes.

Staff told us they discussed all the scan options available to patients and we saw evidence of staff recommending an alternative MRI scanning service when they felt that the referral required imaging with a more detailed resolution than the open MRI could provide.

Staff gave us several examples where anxious patients had been allowed to visit the service to observe the MRI scanner prior to their appointment date to alleviate any fears they may have and to allow them to ask questions in advance. Staff told us this ensured appointments ran smoothly and patients were more relaxed ensuring better quality imaging.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. We saw staff understood their needs and provided appropriate care and treatment.

Care records showed discussions took place before, during and after people’s scans and care and treatment was provided in accordance with people’s needs and preferences.

Patients were fully aware of the costs of their treatment or knew they were an NHS patient prior to their scan procedure. As per Royal College guidelines private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs.

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.

People using the service told us the service was accessible, and they received their results in a timely manner.

At the time of our assessment the service was open from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday with the option to stay open later if clinic list demand required. At the time of our assessment staff told us the waiting time for a scan was less than 7 days. Staff told us they contacted each patient the day before their clinic appointment to check they could still attend. If a patient did not attend, staff would contact both the patient and the referring clinician.

Staff delivered care primarily based on referrals from medical professionals. Radiographers triaged patient referrals and sought advice from radiologists and other specialists if there were any concerns or the scan was of a complex nature. Radiographers carried out scans and an appropriate specialist reported on the results to the referring clinician and patient. This ensured continuity of care throughout the patient journey and rapid access to results and subsequent treatment decisions.

Feedback from stakeholders, such as the partnering NHS hospitals was positive. They told us that the service engaged well to plan and deliver people’s care and treatment.

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

The service did not have an Information Governance Policy with reference to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other relevant legislation.

Staff had not had training in information governance.

People could access information on the provider’s website relating to the services they offered. However, staff told us the website needed a refresh as it still listed team members who had left the service at least 12 months previous and they could not guarantee all the information provide was current.

The provider gave out patient information relevant to the treatment, however these were only readily available for patients whose first language was English. No other patient information was available at the service in relation to leading healthy lifestyles.

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 receive enough information regarding your scan results?’ from 14 patients.

Patients were made aware of the costs of any diagnostic and screening procedure, where they were self-pay or had medical insurance.

Bank staff could not access all the information they required such as current electronic versions of the services policies.

Patient electronic records were secured by password access.

The service told us there had been no data breaches in the previous 12 months.

The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The service had a complaints policy, but it was not being followed. We were shown the services complaints register which showed no complaints had been raised since September 2023. We had been aware of a patient complaint from December 2024 ahead of our assessment and when we raised this with leaders, who were able to provide the services review and response to the complaint. Leaders were unable to tell us if other complaints had not been recorded.

Leaders told us that they did not hold team or governance meetings where feedback and lessons learned from complaints could be shared.

We did not see any information on how to make a complaint displayed within the service.

The service had not signed up to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS).

There was no ability to give feedback or review the service on the provider website. There was patient feedback on the provider website but nothing beyond July 2023.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the complaints policy and told us they would refer all complaints to the complaints manager. We asked staff to provide details of any learning from complaints, but they were unable to give any examples.

Patient feedback forms were completed following a scan and handed to reception on their way out. The service collated the results but recording and sharing with staff was found to be inconsistent.

People told us they had opportunity throughout their patient journey to raise concerns and provide feedback.

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

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 appointments. They told us they were given clear information on their treatment times.

Staff told us they monitored appointment cancellations and followed up any patients who did not attend their appointments. They told us cancelled scans were rescheduled promptly to ensure people’s treatment was not delayed.

Leaders told us they had sufficient capacity to meet patient needs and provide timely care and treatment.

Private patients could self-refer through the service’s website or telephone number via their GP, physiotherapist, chiropractor or osteopath.

The service provided an open MRI scanner which is more suitable for patients who are claustrophobic, have a higher BMI or have difficulty in tolerating a conventional scanner.

The service did not have a documented inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

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 though none had attended in the previous 12 months.

The provider did not have any resources to help people with sight or hearing difficulties access treatment.

Staff told us they provided the same level of care to all patients and staff vetted referrals based on clinical information only.

People who we spoke with were positive about the outcome of their experience and treatment. We did not receive any negative feedback from people who spoke with us about the service. They all told us they were asked if they needed any reasonable adjustments for their appointments.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future,

Staff told us that due to the nature of the services provided it meant they did not routinely discuss people’s long-term care needs.

The service was impacted by a national shortage of radiographers but was actively trying to recruit a second radiographer to the team.