Fulwood Hall 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

Our rating of responsive stayed the same. We rated responsive as good.

Services were planned and delivered to meet patient’s needs, took account of their individual needs, and made it easy for patients to give feedback about their experiences. Patients could access the service when they needed it, in a way that promoted equality and protected their rights.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Services were planned and delivered to meet patient’s needs. Scan referral requests were booked in advance and this enabled staff to plan the staffing and resources required to undertake scan procedures before patients attended their scheduled appointment.

Staff carried out daily huddles and meetings to plan activities and discuss any risks or issues. Radiology staff sought input from referring clinicians or consultant radiologists if they required further information or advice about patient eligibility or referral requirements and in relation to the delivery of scan images and reports.

The service mainly operated between 8am and 8pm daily during weekdays.

The service also carried out limited services on weekends (such as ultrasound lists). There was a hospital-wide on call service during out of hours service to support imaging requests in the outpatient and surgical services.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. The service had on-site X-ray, fluoroscopy and ultrasound facilities. The service also had mobile X-ray scan equipment that could be used by operating theatres staff if required. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were undertaken from a mobile MRI scan facility managed by the corporate provider. The service did not provide computed tomography (CT) scan services. Patients could be referred to another of the provider’s local hospitals if CT scans were required.

The main patient waiting area was small but provided a suitable environment for patients awaiting scans. The hospital also had a separate waiting lounge for privately funded patients. Patients and those accompanying them had access to free hot and cold drinks and biscuits.

Patients told us their scan procedures were well coordinated, and staff planned and delivered their scan procedures in a way that met their needs. They told us they had not experienced any issues or delays with their scan appointments

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff told us they provided patients with relevant information and discussed this with them, so they were well informed about their scan procedures. Patients told us staff provided them with necessary information about their scan and that staff answered any questions they had.

Patients could access information on the provider’s website relating to the services they offered. Patients received information verbally and in writing prior to undertaking scan procedures.

We saw notice boards included information for staff, patients and visitors. Information leaflets were readily available. Staff told us they could provide written information in different languages or other formats, if required. Staff could access interpreter and sign language services for patients where required.

Information around performance, safety incidents, audits and complaints was shared with staff during daily huddles and routine staff meetings.

Information such as policies and guidelines were available in paper and electronic format. Paper records were held securely, and electronic patient records were easily accessible by staff and kept secure with password-protected access. Staff told us they could easily access information such as patient records, policies and guidance relevant to their role.

Most staff had completed mandatory training in data security awareness and information governance. Scan images and reports were held securely using cloud-based systems and sent to the referring clinicians electronically.

There had been no Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) reportable data breaches relating to the diagnostic imaging service in the 12 months prior to our inspection.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider’s policy for the management of patient complaints stated that complaints would be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where this was not possible (such as for complex complaint investigations), staff were required to send a letter explaining the reason for the delay to the complainant after every 20 working days.

Where patients were not satisfied with the response to their complaint, they were given information on how to escalate their concerns within the organisation (to the corporate provider) or to external organisations such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (for NHS patients) and the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) for private funded patients.

The service reported they had received 3 formal complaints during the 12 months prior to our inspection. Two complaints related to patients not being satisfied with the time taken in receiving their report. One complaint related to an administrative appointment booking error. We saw evidence to show all 3 complaints had been investigated, resolved and responded to in a timely manner. Two of these complaints had been resolved within 5 days.

Patients told us they had been given information on and understood how to raise complaints or concerns. Complaints were investigated and responded to by senior managers. Staff told us information about complaints was discussed and learning was shared through staff briefs, bulletins, daily huddles and through routine staff meetings.

The service collated patient feedback and satisfaction scores relating to the diagnostic imaging service as part of the patient reported feedback measures (PREMS). PREMS survey results during the 12 months prior to our inspection (based on 1,384 responses) showed the diagnostic imaging service achieved an overall satisfaction score of 9.4 out of 10, which was better than the average score across all the provider’s hospitals nationally (9.3). The service achieved scores higher than the provider’s national average in 16 out of the 19 survey questions, demonstrating most patient responses were very positive about the care and treatment they had received.

The net promoter score (NPS) measures patient loyalty and satisfaction by asking how likely a patient is to recommend the service to a friend. The average monthly NPS scores across the diagnostic imaging service between June 2025 and March 2026 ranged between 87.8 and 91.3 (out of 100), indicating respondents were very positive about their experience and recommending the diagnostic imaging service to friends and family. The average monthly response rate ranged between 101 and 151 patients per month during this period.

Managers told us complaints, compliments and feedback from surveys informed learning and improvement. Staff were able to give examples of improvements made following patient feedback, such as increasing capacity and the general environment in patient waiting areas.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff followed the provider’s equality, diversity and inclusion policy, which outlined a commitment to embed diversity, promote equal opportunities and support non-discriminatory practices when delivering care and treatment. New and existing policies and procedures included equality impact assessments.

All radiology staff had completed mandatory training in equality, diversity and human rights. Staff were able to describe the processes for embedding equity including how they ensured they did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

Patients told us their needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff. They told us they were treated with equality and in a non-discriminatory way.

The nature of the diagnostic scan procedures provided by the service meant it was difficult to differentiate outcomes for patients with protected characteristics. However, we looked at data around incidents and patient feedback and complaints and this did not identify any disparity in care experiences, adverse outcomes or inequalities for patients with protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients told us the staff discussed their scan procedure and expectations for scan results as part of their initial assessment.

Staff told us timelines for scan reporting were explained to patients. Scan reports were sent to the referring clinicians electronically. The service reported most reports were sent out within 2 days of the scan procedure. The patients we spoke with did not highlight any concerns around the quality and timeliness of scan image reports.

The nature of the diagnostic scan procedures provided by the service meant most patients attended the service once. However, there were instances where patients could attend for repeat or multiple scans where specified as part of their initial assessment.

The nature of the services provided meant there was no requirement for the service to provide routine after care support or follow up appointments. However, patients were provided with information on how to contact the service if they had any queries about the scan procedure or for any queries around reporting of scan results. The referring clinician or organisation was responsible for any ongoing care and treatment needs.