Spire Little Aston Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patient’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring patient were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This is the first assessment of diagnostic services as an individual service group (it was previously inspected and rated with outpatients). We rated this key question good. This meant patient’s outcomes were consistently good, and patient’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The service usually made sure patient’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed patient’s needs before and during their appointments. Referrers included information about patients’ needs in referrals. Clerical staff telephoned patients before their examinations and took this opportunity to further clarify their needs. There was a weekly theatre meeting which all departments (including imaging) attended to identify patients’ needs to ensure they could be fully met.

We observed an MRI scan, CT scans and an ultrasound diagnostics test. Staff said patients did not routinely require pain relief, but staff assessed patients for any discomfort. Staff assisted patients into comfortable positions for imaging wherever possible. Patients had access to drinking water dispenser as needed or required and a hot drinks machine. Staff had access to mobility aids to assists patients with limited mobility,

Scans and X-rays were planned and delivered in line with evidence-based, guidance, standards and best practice. Diagnostics machines and the environment were arranged to ensure accessibility for all patients including those who may have mobility difficulties.

The service had an MRI/CT operational procedure and local safety rules. These had been reviewed in March 2026, reflected best practise and were due to be reviewed in January 2028.

The service usually planned and delivered patient’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance. All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, and clear references to current local and national guidelines. We saw notice boards displaying up to date guidance to staff.

Staff had access to local rules in clinical areas and signed to confirm that they had read and understood them. Staff could demonstrate how to access clinical protocols.

There was a comprehensive folder for Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations documentation. Radiation risk assessments were carried out for all imaging modalities and reviewed annually. Staff could access radiation protection supervisors (RPS) in the service who had undergone the required training, and radiation protection advisers and medical physics experts remotely.

Audits to demonstrate identified 100% staff compliance with best practice guidelines. Peer review audits were also undertaken as part of a broader framework of continuous improvement. The audits provided checks to ensure that standards were maintained and that the Imagining department was aligned with best practices.

The service reported to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN) intelligence database. The report presented data on PHIN’s existing performance measures, including; patient activity volumes, length of stay, never events, Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), infections and also data submission levels. In addition, it also included complaint data received from private insurers data identified the service performed well.

The service usually worked well across teams and services to support patient. Staff made sure patient only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when patient moved between different services.

Staff prided themselves on good teamwork and communication throughout the multidisciplinary team. We observed this throughout all areas of the whole hospital and the within the imaging department. Radiographers, radiologists and other professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

Staff reported healthy working relations across staff groups. We saw and heard examples of effective team working which was based on mutual respect and trust. Staff told us they worked closely with the outpatient department to ensure patients could combine appointments and have diagnostic tests on the same day as their outpatients appointment whenever possible.

Staff worked closely with theatres to ensure imaging staff were present in theatre when required. There was a weekly theatre meeting which all departments attended to identify patients’ needs including diagnostic imaging during surgery to ensure a radiographer was in theatre when needed.

There was a daily huddle attended by a senior representative from each department to discuss staffing levels, activity and capacity. Staff could raise concerns about staffing levels, patients care and equipment. They also discussed any safeguarding concerns, incidents complaints and staff sickness. Information was entered onto a spreadsheet that all staff could access.

Radiology staff worked closely with the referrers to enable patients to have a prompt diagnosis and treatment pathway. If they identified concerns from scans, they escalated them to the referrer. This ensured staff could share necessary information about the patients and provide holistic care.

The service generally supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service had a range of health promotion information available in the department, including information on the potential risks and benefits of having an x-ray, The service had a range of health promotion information available via the provider website. This included promoting mental health, stress awareness, men’s health, women’s health and cancer awareness.

The service had a range of information leaflets for different scans undertaken which detailed what patients should expect during the visit and how patients should prepare for their scan.

The service monitored patient’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patient themselves.

Staff and leaders monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment through a comprehensive audit programme and peer review programme. This included monthly audits of dose reference levels, and quarterly audits on image quality, Radiation Protection Supervisor (RPS) observational audit, ‘pause and check’ audit and inclusive pregnancy status. Staff also monitored compliance with the World Health Organisation (WHO) checklist, a standardised tool developed to reduce complications and mortality from surgical and interventional procedures. Managers kept a file which recorded recommendations from each audit, the method by which they had communicated the recommendations to staff, and the next audit date. The service used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients. For example, compliance with inclusive point of care testing had improved following a rearrangement of the department for the new MRI scanner. Staff achieved 100% compliance in the latest post-operative x-ray notes audit, and image rejection rate was consistently less than 5%.

The service monitored reporting turnaround time. Compliance with the 5 working day key performance indicator was 95% between January 2026 and June 2026. There were no tests not reported within 28 days throughout this period. The provider benchmarked performance in line with other Spire Healthcare sites, and the service was in line with the provider average. Patients we spoke with who had previously had examinations at the service said that they received their results quickly.

The imaging service supported Spire Little Aston to achieve recognised accreditations and participated in national schemes, including BUPA Breast Care Centre accreditation, British Society of Gynaecology Endoscopy Endometriosis Centre of Excellence and Macmillan Quality Environment Mark.

The provider considered health inequalities and took steps to ensure that outcomes across people with protected characteristics were in line with the wider community.

The service told patient about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent. Staff knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff followed the services policies related to consent, mental capacity, deprivation of liberty and restrictive practice, as relevant.

Where possible, staff gained consent from patients for their care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. We observed an interventional procedures (CT, MRI and ultrasound) saw that the radiologist sought formal, written consent after a discussion about the benefits, risks and potential complications of the procedure. Consent for such procedures was part of the World Health Organisation surgical checklist, which the service audited.

We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care or treatment. People were involved in decision making at all levels

Interpreters were used to support patients to give informed consent, including for British Sign Language and face to face interpreting when necessary.

The service had a consent policy which was up-to-date and provided patients with written information about the consent process prior to attending for appointment. The policy also referenced how staff should seek consent from young people under the age of 18 years of age.

Patients were sent an information leaflet explaining the MRI/CT procedure including what they needed to do prior to the appointment, when they arrived, the examination and getting their results. Patients confirmed they had completed a safety questionnaire and had given their consent for the procedure they had attended for.

All staff received and kept up to date with training on consent and the Mental Capacity Act and knew where to access current polices. Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care.