InHealth Community Diagnostic Centre - Hornchurch

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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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.

Staff completed e-learning on learning disabilities and dementia awareness, which supported them to take a person-centred approach when assessing and responding to people’s individual needs.

The service had resources to help people feel more comfortable during their scan. These included a choice of radio music and mirrored glass to help reduce feelings of claustrophobia. Staff told us they could also provide ongoing reassurance through the intercom during scans for people who needed additional support.

Staff described how they made reasonable adjustments, such as allowing people to be accompanied by a relative or carer. However, staff said they could not extend appointment lengths to meet individual needs, and people could not visit the MRI scanner before their appointment to help manage anxiety or claustrophobia. Following the inspection the provider advised that appointment bookings were managed centrally, and reasonable adjustments could be made where a need was identified.

The service was located on the ground floor allowing easier access for wheelchair users and the service had arrangements to support people with communication needs and equipment to support people with their mobility. Staff did not rely on relatives or accompanying people to interpret, which helped protect people’s privacy and independence. A hearing loop was also available to support people with hearing impairments to communicate more effectively during their visit.

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.

Services were planned and delivered to meet people’s needs. Scan referral requests were booked in advance, and this enabled staff to plan the staffing and resources required to undertake scan procedures before people attended their scheduled appointment.

Staff carried out daily huddles at the start of each day to plan activities and discuss any risks or issues. Radiographers sought input from referring clinicians if they required further information or advice about people’s eligibility or referral requirements and in relation to the delivery of scan images and reports.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. The service had 1 MRI scanner with an adjacent control room, from which staff could operate the scanner and observe people during their scan. The service also had 5 consulting rooms that visiting InHealth clinicians or services could use when needed, such as screening sonographers and cardiac physiologists. The service carried out MRI scan lists on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.

Systems were in place to prevent missed appointments, staff contacted people before their appointments to remind them to attend, and this gave a further opportunity to speak with a member of staff and ask any questions. When people missed appointments, text messages were sent to rearrange, or patients were referred to their clinician if multiple appointments were missed. Interpreter and translation services were available, and staff adapted communication to meet individual needs.

People told us they felt informed and supported throughout their care. Staff explained procedures clearly and communicated updates promptly, particularly where appointments were delayed or cancelled. There were several occasions when patients had to be cancelled due to equipment failure, which meant some people had to rearrange their appointment and wait longer for their scan. This could delay access to diagnostic information and affect onward clinical decision-making. Staff explained that cancelled patients were prioritised for rebooking by the central booking team. They were also offered scans at alternative InHealth locations to minimise delays in care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff told us they provided people with relevant information and discussed this with them, so they were well informed about their scan procedures. People who used the service told us staff provided them with necessary information about their scan and that staff answered any questions they had. Some patients also told us parking at the service was difficult and they wish they would have known this beforehand.

People received information verbally and in writing before their scan. People could also access information about the service through the provider’s website and social media platforms. However, this information was not always up to date, as the opening hours on the provider’s website did not reflect the service’s actual operating hours. This could lead to confusion for people and may affect their ability to contact the service. Following the inspection the provider had updated their website to inform service users that the community diagnostic centre and the MRI service hours of operation differ.

We saw there was displayed information for staff and people who used the service. Information leaflets were readily available. Staff could also access interpreter and sign language services for people where required. 

Information such as policies and guidelines were available electronically on the providers intranet. Electronic records were easily accessible by staff and kept secure with password-protected access. Staff told us they could easily access information such as records, policies and guidance relevant to their role.

Information from scans could be reviewed remotely by radiologists to give timely advice and interpretation of results to determine appropriate patient care.

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.

Information about how to raise complaints was displayed in the waiting area. Data we reviewed showed there had been two complaints in the previous 12 months; one was upheld and one was not upheld. Both complaints were investigated thoroughly, and patients received outcome responses that explained the findings and what they could do if they were dissatisfied with the outcome.

Managers told us patients 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. People, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

The service had a complaints policy in place, which outlined the process for acknowledging, investigating, and responding to concerns. Staff were generally able to describe how complaints were managed and resolved. People’s feedback was shared with staff, and the provider had a complaints, litigation, incidents and compliments newsletter which was shared with teams monthly.

Patients could take any unresolved complaints to a third-party organisation. Although all staff were unaware of external adjudication processes, we observed information displayed in the MRI waiting area about the services subscription to an external adjudication service for both NHS and privately funded patients.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was open 3 days a week and typically saw 15 to 25 patients for MRI scans each day. Appointments were scheduled for 20 minutes, which helped the service plan scan lists and use capacity efficiently.

People who used the service could be referred through several routes, including the provider’s own referral pathway, other independent health provider routes, NHS referrals and self-referrals. The service mainly saw privately funded patients but also saw referred from local NHS services.

Managers told us waiting times were monitored centrally by the provider to ensure people could access services promptly when needed, and that it typically took approximately 20 days from referral to scan. On average, between June 2025 and May 2026, 91% of scans were undertaken within 30 working days of referral acceptance. This meant most people were able to access scans within the provider’s expected timeframe, supporting timely access to diagnostic imaging, although performance was below the provider’s 100% threshold. In the last year, the provider cancelled 3% of all appointments. This meant some people had to wait longer or rearrange their scan, which could delay access to diagnosis. Staff told us images were typically reported within 5 to 10 days. Data we reviewed showed that, in the 3 months before the inspection, 97% of private patient reports were completed within 48 hours and 84% of NHS patient reports were completed within 72 hours. This meant most people could expect their results to be available in a timely fashion after their scan which supported onward clinical decision-making.

If unable to attend, people were supported to reschedule. Did Not Attend (DNA) rates remained low, at 3%, reflecting effective communication.

Access to information was inclusive and accessible. The service’s website provided clear directions, transport advice and contact information to support people attending the service.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.