Spire Norwich 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

Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided information which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback, knew who to speak with if they had concerns and were confident the service took their concerns seriously. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access. Patients were involved in making decisions about their care and understood the need for the recommended diagnostic procedures.

This key question was previously rated good and remains as good.

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 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 their needs.

The service worked in partnership with patients to improve the quality of care provided. Patients who used the service told us that staff considered their needs, and scan procedures were undertaken in accordance with their expectations and preferences.

Staff discussed patients individual clinical and personal needs with them before commencing scans.
Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

There was a hearing loop system installed.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients who used the service. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of patients needs and carried out scan procedures appropriately.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients. so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local patients, and the communities served.

The service planned and delivered care to meet patients needs. Staff booked Scan referral requests in advance, which enabled them to plan the staffing and resources required to undertake scan procedures before patients attended their scheduled appointment.

Staff greeted patients at reception, which was visibly clean and welcoming, before they attended their scan. The waiting area provided refreshments and a television. A hearing loop system was in use in this area at the time of our assessment.

Patients who used the service told us they were satisfied with both the service and their overall experience. There had been no delays in receiving scan images or reports.

A car park was located at the front of the hospital for patient and visitor use only and included designated disabled parking spaces for easier access to the hospital reception.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured patient information leaflets were available in the main waiting area; however, these leaflets were not specific to diagnostic imaging. The service did provide the leaflets in a variety of languages.

The hospital intranet held resources such as hospital and department policies, and staff knew how to access these policies.

Staff provided patients with relevant information about their scan procedures and discussed this with them to ensure they were well informed. Staff also answered any questions patients asked.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 main diagnostic waiting area had a ‘you said, we did’ board.

The service and staff made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Patients understood how to make a complaint or raise concerns, and staff knew how to manage complaints appropriately. For example evidence showed a complaint raising issues around the manner and attitude of some staff in relation to email and telephone etiquette. The actions the service took were to provide guidance around telephone and email etiquette and also for additional customer care training to be taken by staff who regularly communicate with patients.

The service made complaints leaflets available for patients to take and read, which provided guidance on how to raise a complaint. Patients knew how to raise concerns and received feedback when they did so.

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

Managers monitored waiting times. Patients could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards (NHS patients via the choose and book). Where there were large waiting lists, these were monitored and reduced over time.

The service 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.

Patients we spoke with during the assessment did not raise any concerns about the length of time they were kept waiting for their appointment.

Once in the department the waiting time for the scanner, was between 10 minutes and 15 minutes; we observed a patient was kept waiting a few minutes in the changing cubical whilst another patient was being scanned.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, including providing hoists or walking aids for patients with impaired mobility.

The service maintained adequate medical cover, with 2 resident medical officers in place.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture that empowered patients using the service to share their views. Patients told us they felt able to raise concerns with staff.

Staff assessed and understood the needs and preferences of patients using the service and treated them equally and without discrimination.

Staff at all levels had completed Level 1 equality, diversity, and human rights training as part of their mandatory training.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff explained scan procedures to patients using the service before their appointments. patients told us they felt satisfied with the information provided and understood what to expect.

The nature of the diagnostic scan procedures meant most patients attended the service on a single occasion, unless their initial assessment required more than 1 scan.

Due to the nature of the services, there was no requirement to provide routine after care support or follow up appointments. However, staff provided patients with information after their scans to support them with any questions about the procedure or the reporting of scan results. The service had processes in place to identify and escalate urgent findings appropriately.