Spire Portsmouth 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained at 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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. For example, staff were able to tailor their approach for patients who were distressed in the scanning clinic and provide a more comfortable experience.

The treatment and care met patients' needs in a way which was safe and supportive. Staff communicated with patients so that they understood their care and treatment, including finding effective ways to communicate with patients with communication difficulties. There were interpreting services available for those who needed them.

Facilities and premises were effective for the service being delivered to ensure people could receive person-centred care. The reception area and the waiting area had seating area and toilet facilities for patients and visitors, with enough space for people who use a wheelchair.

Managers made sure staff, patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. Staff told us they were able to access translation services quickly and easily, with languages available that are less common.

Private or self-paying patients knew all the planned and possible costs, in-line with the Royal College guidelines. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or part of it), they were provided with a statement stating the terms and conditions of the services to be provided, including the amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible this was always provided in writing prior to the commencement of the service.

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

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of patients. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements. Staff explained what they would do to ensure patients were followed up for their care and treatment to be delivered, helping to provide continuity. This included contacting referrers to ensure procedures were rebooked if needed. The diagnostic imaging service told us there had been no patients within the last 12 months who had been flagged as not attending their appointment.

Referrals and appointments were monitored daily and staff managed appointment schedules to ensure there was enough time for the procedures.

The service was open for appointments from 8am until 7:30pm, depending on the type of scan a patient was booking. The service had appointment slots during the day which could be booked at short notice, for patients who had more urgent needs. This meant the service was able to offer better care provision to meet patient’s needs.

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

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various procedures, investigations and advice for about their health. We saw information was displayed throughout the department and in waiting areas for patients to access. For example, there were details on how to give feedback, how to request a chaperone and information on what to expect during scanning procedures. Whilst patients were waiting for their scan, they were kept updated by staff.

Information was available in alternative languages and formats, such as large print or easy read. Information was also available on the services website. This included what types of scans were available, what they involved and how much they cost.

Patients told us they had been provided with information about their procedure before their appointment. This included information on what they needed to do so they could prepare, and what to expect during their scan. Patients were contacted by telephone and with follow up emails with confirmation. Translation and interpreting services were used to provide information to patients whose first language was not English, and staff were able to organise this when they received a referral.

Patients were made aware of the costs of any diagnostic and screening procedure, where they were self-paying or had medical insurance. The service had taken steps to improve the information given to patients on the costs of procedures after identifying this as an area for improvement.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients we spoke to knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. Leaders worked to ensure people, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. Feedback from patients was actively encouraged and monitored, in order to drive improvements in the quality of the service. We saw various posters around the service which allowed people to give feedback on the care they received, giving them the website, telephone number or a QR code.

Complaints or concern were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in good time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. The service had received 3 formal complaints within the last 12 months, and they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy. People received an acknowledgement of their complaint within 3 working days, and a response within 20 days. Where issues were identified, managers acknowledged the feedback and contacted people directly to seek resolution. Patients were kept updated about how their feedback was acted on.

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

The service carried out 16,880 scans from May 2025 to April 2026. Data from the service showed no patients had been recorded as ‘Did Not Attend’ (DNA) in the last 12 months. In the last 12 months, the service had 1 recorded cancellation of a patient’s appointment. This was due to an error where the patient was sent home incorrectly. We saw details of the action taken and lessons learnt following this.

Managers monitored waiting times. People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Patients we spoke with during the assessment did not raise any concerns about the length of time they were kept waiting for their appointment. Some patients told us their referral and treatment happened quickly. At the time of our assessment, we were told the longest waiting time for a patient to receive an appointment was 3 weeks. Most patients were able to receive an appointment within a week of the referral being sent to the service.

The service staff managed the department usage and occupancy for patient flow well. The diagnostic imaging department was located on the ground floor of the building, enabling people who use a wheelchair to access easily. People could use a wheelchair provided by the service if they had mobility needs. The waiting areas where accessible for people, as well as accessible toilet facilities. Within the waiting areas, patients and relatives could use seat risers on chairs for comfort and accessibility.

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

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to support service planning and delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes.

Staff and leaders worked to tailor support and reduce inequalities. For example, after reviewing patient feedback, the service developed large print formats of information for patients with a visual impairment.

Staff were able to tailor their support for patients with mental health needs, people living with dementia, people with a learning disability and autistic people. We heard about an example where staff worked together to support a person with additional needs to ensure their treatment was carried out safely. We saw information which showed staff were encouraged to report the physical or cultural needs of patients so they could deliver the right care.

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

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer if they wished.

Staff discussed what patients might need to do when they return home, and reinforced key information based on current best practice. For example, patients were provided with information on aftercare following an injection into a joint for an ultrasound guided biopsy. This included what patients should do if they felt unwell or experienced certain symptoms following the procedure.

Patients were provided with information about how they would receive results and who they would come from, as well as information on any related follow up appointments. Staff had systems to refer patients to doctors and consultants for further care or treatment and people told us they knew what the next steps were in their treatment plans.