Spire Cambridge Lea 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

The service worked with patients to understand and manage risks. Care met patients' needs in a way which was safe and supportive and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them.

When people communicated their needs, emotions or distress, staff could manage this in a positive way which protects their rights and dignity and maximised learning for the future about the causes of their distress.

We looked for evidence that patient were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We assessed the levels of patient’s privacy and dignity afforded to patients. We asked patients to tell us about their experiences, if they were respected, if they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take patient’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

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

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 treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients told us staff treated them as individuals and asked relevant questions about their lives. One patient told us how staff had discussed their reaction to a medical condition and how this may be affected during a scan. They then gave the patient the option of how to proceed with the scan, which enabled the patient to better manage and symptoms they may develop.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs. For example, staff asked about patients communication needs and posters signposted patients to ask for help if they needed information in an alternative format, such as large print or easy read text. Staff also had access to communication aids and translation services. We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Staff spoke with patients in a way they could understand and had a good understanding of their individual needs and preferences.

Feedback was gathered through patient surveys and concerns were responded to. Patient feedback in January 2026 showed patients were happy with their consultations and experiences at the hospital.

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.

Patients were offered chaperones, translation support and quiet spaces, enabling them to communicate effectively, retain control and feel comfortable during their appointments. Staff supported patients to remain independent by providing reassurance throughout scans, they updated patients on how long they had been in the scanner and how long was left. Patients had a panic button they could press any time during the scan to summon help. Staff could stop the scanning immediately if the patient requested this. This enabled patients to have choice and control over their procedures.

One patient told us how staff had explained their scan could be completed with or without contrast (an injected dye) and how the contrast may affect them. The patient was then able to make up their own mind which scan to have.

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

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.

Patients told us staff carried out regular observations during their treatment and provided timely interventions, such as repositioning, as needed. They told us staff were calm and reassuring and answered any questions they had about their treatment. They told us that any concerns or anxieties were listened to and supported by staff.

Patients could summon staff and there were emergency call bells sited close to patient treatment areas. Patients who experienced an anaphylactic reaction (severe allergic reaction) while receiving a scan or x-ray were treated in line with guidance from Resuscitation Council UK.

People who used mobility aids such as walking frames or crutches had them close by and were assisted to use them after their scan was completed.

Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. They were empathetic and considerate of the stress of a scanning environment.