Spire Parkway 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.

At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment the rating is 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 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. Scans were planned and delivered in line with evidence-based, guidance, standards, and best practice. 

The service had operational procedures and protocols applicable to the range of scans provided. There were local safety rules for the x-ray machines and the computerised tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners. These were in date and reflected good practise.

Patients did not routinely require pain relief. Staff assisted patients into comfortable positions for imaging wherever possible. Patients had access to drinking water as needed or required. There was a water dispenser for patient use.

The service 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 delivered care according to best practice and national guidance. Policies we looked at were up-to-date, referenced to current national guidelines and had been signed off through appropriate governance arrangements. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and management newsletters. We saw notice boards displaying up to date guidance to staff. 

Polices and processes took account of changes to the Royal Colleges’ guidelines and National Institute for Health and Care and Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Staff were able to access policies, processes, and guidance easily through the hospitals electronic system. Policies were monitored at a corporate level to ensure they were updated, reviewed and consistent across each Spire hospital.

There was a corporate audit programme with monthly, quarterly, biannual, and annual audits scheduled. Results were benchmarked with other hospitals within Spire. These were discussed at the weekly Rapid Response Meeting, monthly senior management meeting and reported to the Medical Advisory Committee. Any audits out of range would have action plans and be repeated more frequently.

The service 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.

Radiographers, radiologists, and other professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care and there were healthy relationships between professional groups and with other parts of the hospital.

There was a daily huddle attended by a representative from each department to discuss staffing levels, activity, and capacity. Staff could raise concerns about staffing levels, patient care and equipment. They 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 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.

While there was no health promotion information available that was specific to the imaging department, more general information was available throughout the rest of the hospital.

Information leaflets were available in hard copies and online which included weight management, smoking cessation, mobility, and avoiding falls. Patient information leaflets of a variety of conditions and post-operative care were available in different languages. These included hernia repair, knee surgery, and wound care.

The service monitored performance continuously in order to improve it. Staff ensured image quality was of a sufficient standard, and this was consistent. They met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patient themselves.

Staff monitored the effectiveness of the service through audit and benchmarking to compare with other similar services within the organisation. The service used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients. The service participated in relevant provider led audits. 

The service had been accredited under the Quality Standard for Imaging framework from the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Radiographers.

There were key performance indicators for the timeliness and quality of results reporting. These were managed centrally and the performance of individual hospitals was monitored. While they were usually met, any issues were addressed as evidenced in the notes we saw of departmental meetings.

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

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. 

We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care, treatment, or support. For example, when positioning a patient, radiographers would explain what was to happen, ask if that was OK and pause for a reply.

If required, interpreters were available by telephone to support people to give consent. The exception to this was for MRI scans where there needed to be an absolute assurance that the patient understood the safety questions asked. For these patients, the consent was gained face to face with the interpreter present in the room.

By policy, family members or carers were never asked, nor allowed to act as interpreters.

Patients we spoke with confirmed they had completed a safety questionnaire and had given their consent for the procedure for which they had attended. 

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and their responsibilities when assessing capacity to consent. All staff received and kept up to date with training in the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and knew where to access the current polices. Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff knew how they would carry out and document a capacity assessment if required.