- Independent hospital
Spire Portsmouth Hospital
Assessment report published 10 August 2026
Contents
Ratings - Diagnostic imaging
Our view of the service
We inspected this service on 12 and 13 May 2026[SD1] . We assessed 33 quality statements across the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The assessment was carried out due to aged rating.
Spire Portsmouth Hospital is operated by Spire Healthcare Limited. The diagnostic imaging service performs CT (Computerised Tomography), MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), Ultrasound and X-ray scans to diagnose conditions.
The quality of care and treatment of children aged between 16 and 18 years of age undergoing diagnostic imaging procedures was not reviewed as part of the assessment of diagnostic imaging.
Safe
The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience in the departments to ensure high quality care and treatment.
Managers made sure staff received training, but not all staff received regular appraisals. Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients. Most of the equipment was clean and well-maintained.
Effective
Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment was based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patient’s comfort was observed throughout the procedures
Where necessary staff assessed and managed patients nutritional and hydration needs. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.
Caring
Patients were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff responded to patients in a timely way. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions from allied health professionals.
Responsive
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 service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback. Patients were involved in making decisions about their care and understood the need for the recommended diagnostic procedures. The service supported staff wellbeing.
Well-led
Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders had oversight of the quality of service being delivered through governance and risk management systems. However, we identified some areas where governance was not always effective. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.
People's experience of this service
During the assessment we spoke with patients who all provided positive feedback about the service and staff. We observed kind, compassionate and dignified interactions between staff and patients. Records we reviewed showed people were involved in their care and treatment. Most of the feedback submitted to the service was positive, with patients commenting on friendly, professional staff and the speed of the service.
In 12 month period prior to inspection, feedback from patients to the service showed an average of 96% felt their overall experience was very good or good.