The Christie Pathology Partnership

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

The service followed current evidence and best practice. Policies and procedures reflected relevant national guidance. Staff followed standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure consistency and reliability in testing processes.

The service monitored the effectiveness and quality of its work through internal quality control processes and participation in external quality assurance schemes. Results were regularly reviewed to ensure accuracy and reliability, and any discrepancies were investigated to support continuous improvement.

The laboratory worked collaboratively with clinical teams and other services to support effective patient care. There were clear processes for communication of results, including escalation of critical or urgent findings, ensuring that clinicians received timely information to inform treatment decisions.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The service had corporate policies in place and shared clinical policies and procedures with its partner NHS trust. This ensured care pathways were established and followed nationally recognised guidance, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence(NICE) recommendations. Policies were easy for staff to access, up to date, and referenced relevant national standards.

Leaders monitored policies and procedures through department meetings. They confirmed that all policies remained current, and our review of a sample of policies supported this.

Staff were experienced, appropriately qualified, and demonstrated the skills and knowledge required to meet the needs of the service. The provider supported this through a programme of enhanced training, reflecting a clear commitment to maintaining competence. The service participated in external quality assessment (EQA) schemes and maintained UKAS accreditation to ISO 15189, ensuring compliance with recognised standards of quality and laboratory competence.

Staff told us they used equipment correctly and followed manufacturer guidance, including user manuals, best practice documentation, and training resources. They also used pictorial guidance where appropriate to support safe and effective practice.

The service delivered care and treatment based on evidence-based best practice. Staff worked closely with biochemists, attended training courses, and received updates from professional bodies such as the Royal College of Pathologists. External organisations also provided updates on new techniques and advancements. The team reviewed this information collectively, and biochemists shared relevant updates across the service.

Managers described how the service responded to emerging national guidance. For example, they outlined work undertaken to align with national recommendations on standardising acute kidney injury detection alerts. The service carried out audits to monitor compliance and support implementation.

The provider supported continuous learning and knowledge sharing through special interest forums open to all staff. These covered areas such as biochemistry, haematology, infection sciences, and tissue sciences.

The service communicated updates effectively to staff. This included laboratory-specific emails detailing system upgrades, the introduction of new equipment such as a block-facing tool, and guidance on its use.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

We sought feedback from the partner organisation about how the service monitored and improved outcomes. They told us the quality and accuracy of results were good and supported safe clinical decision-making. Turnaround times had improved over time, particularly within 3 to 4 days. They reported improved working relationships and communication, with more open and constructive engagement between teams and a shared focus on resolving issues and improving pathways. They did not identify any significant or systemic patient safety concerns.

Where issues arose, the service managed these through established governance arrangements, including the Principal Partners Meeting. Partners described the service as reliable and accessible. They recognised opportunities to further improve process efficiency and end-to-end turnaround times and anticipated that the implementation of the new Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) and the introduction of digital pathology would support these improvements.

Leaders routinely monitored outcomes to support continuous improvement and demonstrated a proactive approach to quality management. The service held UKAS accreditation to ISO 15189 (July 2025), which confirmed compliance with recognised international standards for laboratory quality and competence. Staff completed external quality assurance checks in line with requirements. We reviewed 10 external quality assurance reports, all of which achieved acceptable or good or excellent ratings, with no borderline or unacceptable results identified.

Staff maintained effective quality control processes throughout laboratory activity. They tracked reagents, logged specimen handling, and completed manual checks during embedding to ensure accuracy. Staff escalated discrepancies appropriately and recorded these in audit logs, which leaders reviewed regularly to identify themes and ensure appropriate action.

Leaders implemented an annual audit programme, which covered both documentation and operational processes. They reviewed audit outcomes at monthly performance meetings and escalated risks through established governance systems where required. Staff recorded non-conformances within the quality management system and implemented corrective and preventative actions, which were subject to clinical oversight. The service did not identify any significant trends in external or internal quality control data, which indicated stable performance.

The service monitored reagent performance through trend analysis, which enabled staff to identify changes in staining quality and mitigate potential risks to diagnostic accuracy. Leaders recorded risks relating to performance against key performance indicators on the risk register, and staff logged any failure to meet targets as non-conformances within the quality management system.

Performance data showed that the service did not consistently meet all key performance indicators. For example, histopathology reporting within 10 days achieved 64% against a target of 90%, and full blood count reporting achieved 90% against a target of 95%. Of 9 key performance indicators, 2 were achieved. Leaders recognised that improvements depended on increasing reporting capacity and progressing planned service developments. Turnaround times within blood sciences remained stable, with full blood count results at 94%, coagulation at 93%, and biochemistry at 87%. Despite these challenges, leaders demonstrated improvement in several areas. Histopathology turnaround times improved at earlier stages, with 74% completed within 3 days and 87% within 4 days. Blood sciences performance also showed progress, with chemistry and haematology results approaching target levels.

The service gathered feedback from service users through an annual pathology survey for 2024 to 2025. Most respondents rated requesting processes (88%) and turnaround times (TATs) (81%) as good or excellent. However, some feedback identified delays, and 17% of respondents felt patient needs were not consistently met for example some patients had complained about the turnaround times, and delays in treatments caused by this. Leaders reviewed this feedback and used it to inform service improvements.

Overall, leaders demonstrated effective systems for monitoring quality and outcomes, with evidence of improvement. However, further work was required to ensure consistent achievement of all performance targets and to strengthen capacity to meet demand.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.