Rivers 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

We looked for evidence that people were at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that 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.

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

An inclusive service was provided to support, patients’ individual needs and preferences. Reasonable adjustments were made to help patients access services, they provided orientation videos to inform patients about what to expect on their first and second visits. The waiting area and reception were arranged as an open plan space. The service had air conditioning. There were separate male and female toilets.  

Grab rails and stools were used to assist obese patients in positioning for X rays. Equipment was available in the dual use X ray room to steady patients who needed support moving into or out of required positions. 

The effectiveness of care and treatment was monitored by staff, and findings were used to drive improvements and achieve good outcomes for patients. 

Clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC) audits were undertaken by the service to review waiting times. Waiting times were observed to vary between 6 and 20 minutes. Outcomes of this is that waiting times were found to not be excessive. 

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.

Care was planned and provided in a way that met the needs of patients to reflect physical, mental, social and religious or cultural needs. Staff told us they ensured patients were involved in their care by allowing patients to have a voice. Services were planned and organised by managers so that the changing needs of the local population were met. We spoke to 2 patients who said they understood their conditions, and staff explained treatment options. Staff told us they offered necessary adjustments where appropriate. 

For patients requiring additional support, including those living with dementia, family members or friends were permitted to stand behind the screen with the radiographer and remain with the patient during diagnostic imaging scans and x-rays. Lead aprons were available for those supporting the patient to protect them from unnecessary radiation.  

Children under the age of 16 could be x-rayed or scanned, with approximately 1 in every 50 patients under 16. A private car park was made available for patients. Access to the building was step-free. Hallways were wide so patients in wheelchairs could move easily. 

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.

Initial contact with the service was usually by telephone and followed up with letters. Patients were informed of what to expect on their first visit, including estimated appointment duration, and any need to change clothing or wear a gown. Procedure costs and payment arrangements were provided in advance.  

Information leaflets available were also only available in print but there were no alternatives for those with communication difficulties. The service had access to translation services. Staff told us the booking team would ask questions around any communication difficulties and any concerns would be addressed by radiographers before the patient arrived for their appointment.  

The service had a website that was accessible. There were options to increase and decrease font size and the contact details were provided.   

Patients we spoke to said they were given leaflets after their appointments. Patients told us these leaflets explained the purpose of their appointment and what would happen in the appointment Patients told us the type of scan they were having was also explained. This identified good practice in communicating care and treatment.    

Continuity of care was supported because patients generally remained with the same clinician, and appointments were block booked.  

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.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain. Patients we spoke with told us they knew how to raise concerns. Leaders requested patient feedback throughout their treatment.  

Feedback and concerns could be raised easily, and complaints were treated seriously, investigated thoroughly, and lessons learned were shared with staff.  

No complaints had been received by the diagnostic imaging service in the last 12 months and none had been referred to the independent sector complaints adjudication service.  

Staff understood the complaints policy and how to manage complaints. Staff described the process, which involved contacting patients on the same day a complaint was received to offer a resolution. If unresolved, a meeting was arranged at the clinic, followed by a written response within two working days. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients reported they were seen promptly, and communication was clear and concise. However, we did not observe additional support for those with communication difficulties.  

Diary slots were allocated daily for new patients, and appointment preferences were taken into account.  

Patients presenting with protected characteristics such as pregnant patients, individuals in distress, or those with loss of motor or sensory function were prioritized and needs were met. 

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 understood when patients needed more support, such as translating services.  

Leaders told us they would cancel appointments if there was a serious risk posed to patient safety. If appointments needed to be cancelled these would be communicated to patients with apologies given.  

The service offered Language Line for patients whose first language was not English and required further support in communicating. Staff told us there was additional support for patients in the form of leaflets. Leaflets could be made available in other languages or for those who are hard of sight. Information from audits was used by managers to improve care and treatment. The service captured patient experience through Cemplicity, Doctify, compliments, complaints, and other patient feedback channels. These mechanisms provided regular, real-time patient experience data, which the department reviewed and incorporated into its quality improvement and governance processes.

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. 

Staff told us they were aware of the organisation’s vision and value around providing the best patient care possible. We saw leaflets available on supporting patients with their care such as providing support on healthy eating, cancer support and additional support offered for patients who needed a chaperone.  

Staff told us person-centred care is important to them and they asked patients about their feelings on care decisions.