Spire Norwich 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

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this key question. This key question has been rated good.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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. The service had local modality protocols which had been approved for different pathways which were in date.

The service had an MRI/CT operational procedure and local safety rules. These had been reviewed in March 2025 and were due to be reviewed in March 2028. We found these were in date and reflected best practice.

Staff assessed patient’s needs. Scans were planned and delivered in line with evidence-based, guidance, standards and best practice.

Staff carried out daily safety huddles each morning to review the patient lists for each imaging modality. Following the huddles, staff shared relevant information with senior staff by email and communicated key points to staff. Staff aimed to identify and plan for patients’ individual needs when contacting them prior to their appointments and continued to respond to those needs during their appointment.

We observed staff providing person‑centred care to a patient undergoing an MRI scan who experienced back pain. Staff took appropriate action to promote comfort by positioning support under the patient’s knees and providing a blanket due to low room temperature.

Staff understood how to identify patients with communication needs and the service’s understood their responsibilities in meeting the accessible information standard. The service had installed hearing loops throughout the hospital to support people with hearing impairments. Staff described how they used live translation tools to support effective communication with patients who did not speak English.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They 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 national guidelines. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and emails.

The service had policies and standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place which were in date and regularly reviewed. The policies supported evidence-based practice and national standards. For example, the diagnostic imaging service held detailed documentation such as the Ionising Radiations Protection Policy and Procedures under IR(ME)R 2017 Referral criteria.

The service had numerous audits in place relating to activities in the diagnostic imaging remit. However, the service did not participate in any external benchmarking activities with other comparable diagnostic imaging independent services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support patients.

Staff shared information about wider hospital operations at the daily huddle meetings, and diagnostic staff discussed their own set of patients. We were informed that there was no handover as such but information was communicated verbally and by email when required.

The team also worked effectively with wider hospital staff, and the diagnostic imaging manager met with other heads of departments and leads to exchange information and cascade key messages to team members.

The department had not held a departmental meeting since September 2025 due to staff constraints and focus of delivery of patient care. However, staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns or discussing issues when required.

Staff also described a flexible approach to working arrangements.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service generally supported patient’s 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.

Although there were limited time and opportunity within diagnostic imaging to support patients to manage their health and wellbeing or make healthier lifestyle choices, staff encouraged patients to hydrate. We also observed a noticeboard in the shared waiting area that displayed leaflets promoting wellbeing, including information about smoking cessation services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service monitored patients care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patients themselves.

The hospital relied on a ‘small pool’ of reporting radiologists. However, staff followed a process to flag urgent findings to ensure timely action. This helped to improve patient outcomes.

Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment through audits.

Staff demonstrated competence in using the equipment and technology available to support patients and improve their health outcomes.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told patient about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centered care and treatment.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent.

We observed radiology staff explain an MRI procedure to 2 patients and obtain consent to proceeding with the examination. Staff discussed the MRI scan with the patients and obtained appropriate consent. In both instances, staff provided clear explanations about the procedures being undertaken.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to obtain informed verbal and written consent from patients using the service before commencing scans. Consent was appropriately documented in all 3 patient records we reviewed.

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 consent form incorporated patients who lack mental capacity.