Spire Parkway 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 protected their rights and dignity and maximised learning for the future about the causes of their distress.

We looked for evidence that patients 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, whether they were respected and how they were treated and supported. We also looked for evidence that 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 good. At this assessment the rating remains as good.

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.

The service was exceptional at treating patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected patient’s privacy and dignity. 

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff introduced themselves to patients and said what their role was. Staff were discreet when caring for patients. They took their time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. 

Staff in the scanning rooms responded to any anxieties a patient might have about their procedure and took steps to reduce the stress within the environment. Time was taken to explain what the equipment did and what was going to happen. Patients who were particularly anxious, who were very young or who had cognitive impairment were usually able to have somebody familiar with them subject to risk assessments.

In the scanning room patients were covered as far as possible and not unduly exposed. Where breast x-rays were done, a privacy screen was provided.

Staff were respectful to the patients. Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness. We saw a frail patient who had specific needs being looked after in a very caring and considerate way by the radiographer who was carrying out their scan. Another patient, waiting for their x-ray, told us they had been to the department before and they had been “very satisfied with the care”, and had been treated with “kindness and empathy.”

We observed that those patients who were helped in their mobility needs by portering staff were afforded a great deal of support and kindness.

The service treated patient as individuals and made sure patient’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Staff took account of patient’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how this may relate to their care needs. 

The hospital had a prayer box that both patients and staff could use. A dedicated room would be identified every day to allow patient’s privacy if they wished.

There was access to a telephone interpretation service.

The service promoted patient’s independence, so patient knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The staff provided reassurance throughout the scan, they updated the patient on how long they had been in the scanner and how long was left. 

Patients had a call button they could press during most scans to summon help. Staff could stop the scanning immediately if the patient requested this. 

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can be noisy, take a long time and some patients find them claustrophobic. Earplugs were available which protected patient’s ears and helped to reduce the noise. For those patients demonstrating heightened anxiety, staff provided choice and control to patients, such as use of the call bell and becoming familiar with the scanner beforehand. 

Medication for anxiety could be provided by the patient’s own GP.

The staff listened to and understood patient’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patient’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

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 the scanning environment. 

Patients could summon staff during the scan and in some of the modalities there was an emergency call bell.

Patient’s mobility needs and preferences were discussed with them and, if they could be accommodated, suitable arrangements made. When patients needed complex lifts or to be hoisted, the department worked with the on-site physiotherapy team who took the lead for safety reasons.

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. Portering staff were particularly attentive to patients’ needs. 

We saw how an elderly patient who had attended for an outpatients assessment was required to have an x-ray. The service recognised they had particular needs because of their frailty and mobility and arranged for them to have the x-ray there and then rather than having to return on another date.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

There was a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. Many staff told us it was a good place to work, they felt respected, listened to and able to raise concerns and suggestions. Staff said they could provide high standards of care and treatment.

There had been a change of the hospital’s senior leadership in the past few months, and staff told us they felt supported and were not afraid to speak up if they had concerns. They were aware of all avenues available to them to share their concerns. Staff were mostly positive about the culture within the service and most felt listened to and respected. The new senior managers were visible and were present in the department daily. Staff told us they could approach them with any concerns and felt supported by the current senior management.

Staff had confidence in the current management of the imaging department, and we noted good working relationships between staff of all grades and roles. The imaging department was very much a team effort.

The hospital undertook an annual staff survey. Results for 2025 showed 65% of staff intended to stay at the hospital, between 50-70% felt they had a good work life balance and between 72-100% felt they had trust in their manager. T

The provider and local leaders ensured staff with protected characteristics felt included and respected within the service. 

Staff wore thermoluminescent dosemeters to record their cumulative workplace exposure to ionising radiation, and these were changed and checked every 2 months by a suitable contractor.

The sickness rate between January March 2026 was 4.1% for the diagnostic imaging department. This was lower the Spire group average of 5.3%. Staff who were off sick would be offered physical and psychological support if required. Turnover rates were low with no staff having left the imaging department in the last six months.