Spire Little Aston 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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patient could access care in ways which met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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 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.

The service usually made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

Staff provided patients with information about risks and benefits of examinations to allow them to make choices about their care.

The premises were accessible to patients with limited mobility. Toilet facilities and patient changing rooms were spacious with grab rails. Lockers were available in changing rooms for patients to safely store their belongings. The service had an MRI safe wheelchair and trolley.

As per Royal College guidelines private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or partially), they were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the services to be provided, including as to the amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible this was always provided in writing prior to the commencement of the service. 

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients’ diagnostic imaging tests were delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from imaging services that were co-ordinated and responsive.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant leaders had met with other organisations to discuss specific needs in their area. For example, the imaging service worked with a local radiotherapy provider providing identified slots for radiotherapy planning. There were also plans to provide additional activities including non-symptomatic mammography

Patients were given choice and flexibility around their appointments. The service was open for appointments from 8 am to 8pm 7 days a week when patient demand required. The service operated an ‘on call’ service for urgent X-rays out of hours. MRI and CT services were generally open from 8am to 6pm. There were 3 mammography sessions a week, supporting consultant-led rapid access breast clinics where ultrasound and guided biopsies could also be performed.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. For example, there was a hearing loop system installed, there was free carparking within the hospital and there were 10 disabled car parking bays, disabled toilets, and a dementia champion within the hospital.

The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various diagnostic imaging procedures and advice for maximising their health. Information was available in alternative languages.

There were quick response codes on display throughout the hospital and patient areas that people could scan to find out more about specific health conditions.

The service worked within the Accessible Information Standard.

People were made aware of the costs of any diagnostic and screening procedure, where they were self-pay or had medical insurance.

The service generally made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about treatment plans.

Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. Patients, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

There was a complaints policy which was up to date and included timescales and principles. The hospital was a member of the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service. Complaints were discussed at the daily staff huddles. The governance lead reviewed all complaints and would contact families for more information. They would offer a meeting or home visit if appropriate. Any stage 2 complaints that were unresolved would be escalated to the national team for review.

Managers investigated incidents with the whole team. Incidents and any complaints were shared during daily hospital wide safety huddle which included all departments. Any subsequent learning was shared both individually with the staff and department and hospital wide. Patient safety incidents were also shared both within Spire Healthcare and more widely to ensure learning was shared as widely as possible and sufficient action taken to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Complaints or concern were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in good time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. We reviewed 4 formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy. We saw complaint response included an apology and advised how they could progress to the next stage of the complaint if they were not happy with the outcome. They also advised people they could request additional support if they were disabled or if their first language was not English. Leaders monitored trends in complaints and if they met the timescales for a response.

Patients were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. Where improvements were required as a result, patients had the opportunity to be involved in shaping the solutions and measuring the impact. For example, a card had been produced which was given to patients to explain how they could get their diagnostic results.

Learning from complaints and concerns is seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. One improvement following feedback, whilst the Imaging department was open 7 days a week the departments telephone line wasn’t. Following patient and staff feedback the telephone line was opened so patients could call the department to make, cancel or change appointments 7 days a week.

The service usually made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service scanned a total of 20023 patients from 1 July 2025 date to 30 June 2026. A total of 69 DNA’s during the same time scale (0.34%) did not attend (DNA) their appointment.

Managers monitored waiting times. People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to provide diagnostic tests and report on them were in line with national standards. Spire Little Aston key performance indicators from referral to test were CT and MRI imaging10 days and Xray imaging 8 days. Key performance indicators (KPI) for waiting time from referral to scan were mostly achieved across the imaging service. CT performance was slightly above the agreed KPI threshold; however, this was closely monitored.

Staff managed the department usage and occupancy for patient flow well.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and within guidance. In the last 6 months there was 1 incident reported (Friday 26 June to Sunday 28 June 2026) that resulted in 30 patients being cancelled due to the humidity level exceeding 60% which meant the MRI was unsafe to use. Scanning resumed on Monday 29 June 2026 once the humidity had dropped to 56%. All patients had new appointments within 1 week.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. There were posters within the imaging department advising patients if they had waited 20 minutes for their appointment they should speak to staff. There were no incidents reported where a patient had waited for 20 minutes or more. Waiting time collected by the service showed between March 2026 and July 2026 83% of patients were seen at their appointment time.

Patients did not raise any concerns about the length of time they were kept waiting for their appointment. Patients said they were seen promptly. Two patients also said they were seen before their identified appointment time as they had arrived early.

Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning a delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes.

All staff had received mandatory training on learning disability and autism. People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreter services face to face and by telephone. Information could be requested in languages other than English. Staff said they would ensure longer scan slots were booked for patients with additional needs.

Patients were usually supported to plan for important life changes.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care. Reporting staff liaised with referrers and other staff outside of the service to ensure patients received the ongoing care required. Staff provided patients with information about how they would receive results and from whom and any related follow up appointments, and we observed that information and timescales were consistent.

Patients were provided with information about how they would receive results and from whom and any related follow up appointments.