Oaklands Hospital

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 looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We spoke with patients accessing various appointments and procedures across the service, who were positive of their experiences. Patients found that waiting times were short and that it was easy to reach the service if they had a query or request.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness and respect. Staff introduced themselves to patients and said what their role was. Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

In clinic rooms, patients were not left unattended for long periods and there were private spaces where they could change and gowns and privacy curtains were available where needed. However, staff routinely measured patients’ heights and weights near to a waiting room where other patients could see and hear this taking place, meaning that their privacy and dignity could not always be maintained. When we discussed this concern with staff, we found they had already raised this with leaders and plans to make changes were being considered.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Staff understood the typical needs of patients attending for scans and procedures and could demonstrate this in practice. Staff continually reassured patients throughout procedures and were familiar with techniques to help manage patient anxiety. A multifaith room was located on site and was available for all patients to use as required.

Documentation was provided to patients to advise them of the details and what would happen before, during and after the procedure. For MRI scans, patients were informed that they could bring their own music with them to listen to if this would help support them during a scan. Appointment letters and information leaflets advised patients to contact the service in advance if they had any queries or required adjustments such as an interpreter, and staff could give examples of patients being supported to attend following getting in touch in this way. Patients told us that when contacting the service, calls were answered and information was provided quickly.

Appointment letters also included accessibility information, which advised patients on how to get in touch with the service for support with interpretation, or if there were disability or sensory impairment considerations required. Information could be provided in alternative languages, easy-read formats or in braille, as required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Leaflets contained information about various types of scans to help patients make decisions and advised that they could speak to a radiographer or sonographer by phone if they had any further questions in advance of attending. Clinic rooms and waiting areas had posters to inform patients that a chaperone could be requested. The service had an effective chaperone policy, which appropriately considered the needs of people with various cultural and religious values and patients lacking capacity. Staff had the means to pause or stop any procedure immediately if the patient requested this.

The service was accessible for people with additional mobility needs such as wheelchair users, with ramps and lifts as appropriate. A hoist was available on site to support patient transfers if this was needed and staff were trained to use this appropriately. However, the DEXA room was too small to accommodate the hoist and so patients requiring this could not attend for this scan type.

Fee-paying patients accessing the service said they were clearly informed about total costs, payment options and did not feel pressured to accept additional services or seek alternative providers. Both NHS and private fee-paying patients were easily able to rearrange appointments when this was needed.

We heard examples of staff making extensive efforts to ensure patients with protected characteristics and requiring adjustments could be seen. This included allocating a patient who was unable to tolerate crowded spaces to a ward room of her own while she awaited her procedure, or providing a wheelchair to a patient who was unable to walk without assistance. We also heard how the service had planned arrangements for a patient to travel to and attend another site when there were service issues with their own equipment, to ensure they could still be seen in a timely way.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 closely monitored people before, during and after any scan or procedure to check they were comfortable. Staff were able to immediately pause or stop the procedure if a person requested this or if a person experienced any pain, anxiety or discomfort. Additional staff were always present in the area should an unexpected concern arise, and medical support was available both by phone and in person. Staff told us that consultants were accessible and responsive at short notice if needed.

Staff were experienced in managing the needs of patients as they underwent procedures. For example, staff told us of a recent occasion where a patient presented in mental health crisis and described how they managed their needs and stayed with them after operating hours while they awaited appropriate support. Staff were confident about resuscitation procedures and equipment was located nearby and appropriately stocked and checked.

The provider had also developed and implemented a system to better notify and escalate urgent findings from scans, and the service had been an early adopter of this. When an urgent finding was identified, an alert would be raised with the appropriate radiologist for their action, and this would be escalated upwards automatically to clinic leads in the case that the concern wasn’t actioned within a short timeframe. Leaders told us that this had improved how responsive the service was to urgent findings, and the service’s performance in this area could be monitored more effectively.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported and valued by their managers, who were visible and responsive to concerns. Lone working was not a risk in the service as other staff were always present and accessible in the radiology area. Sickness absence rates were low, varying between 0 and 6% each month in the last year for staff in radiology.

Staff felt that their workloads were manageable although service pressures had been higher in recent months. The location had designated mental health first aiders and, in recognition of these pressures, leaders had issued stress risk assessments to all relevant staff to proactively manage any emerging issues. Staff had access to various support schemes and incentives, including long-service awards and 24/7 wellbeing assistance services.

Radiation protection requirements for staff were also effective. Radiation risk assessments were in place for all relevant equipment and procedures and there were systems to ensure that staff did not exceed allowed radiation doses due to their work. Staff personal protective equipment (PPE) such as lead vests were checked routinely for defects.

The provider had undertaken an annual staff survey process, with results that could be focused to the location and certain staff groups. Broadly, results demonstrated improvements on the previous year and were more positive than what the provider reported as healthcare and UK norms. Actions for senior leaders had been developed in response to the results, which included clarifying roles, improving visibility by attending staff meetings, and creating spaces for challenge.