Queen Square Imaging Centre

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 demonstrated a generally effective approach to diagnostic imaging, with evidence of competent staff, collaborative working, and timely reporting. Scans were delivered in line with clinical need and supported by appropriate protocols.

Staff worked well together across modalities and with external partners, including the local NHS trust. Radiologists operated under practising privileges and were part of the trust rota, enabling continuity of care and access to specialist expertise. Reporting turnaround times were monitored internally, with most NHS reports completed within 24 hours and no backlog observed during our assessment.

Staff training and competency frameworks were in place and reviewed annually. All radiographers were registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and trained in both MRI and CT modalities. New starters received an induction and supervision, and there was evidence of ongoing professional development.

Consent processes were observed to be appropriate for adult patients, with written consent obtained for contrast and interventional procedures. Staff were aware of mental capacity considerations and had access to guidance.

This service scored 42 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

Care and treatment were delivered in line with recognised clinical standards and local trust protocols. Imaging protocols were in date and reflected best practice, including the use of safety checklists and risk assessments prior to scanning. Staff followed established procedures for contrast administration and MRI safety screening, and there was evidence of appropriate justification for imaging referrals.

The service’s internal protocols referenced national guidance, including Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) recommendations and National Institute for Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and there was a formal process in place for annual protocol review. Governance structures, including participation in NHS trust-level clinical governance, supported the dissemination and local integration of national updates. However, while these references were cited in protocol documents, at the time of assessment, we did not see clear documentation showing how specific national guidance was systematically mapped into local procedures or used to measure compliance.

The absence of structured audit activity and limited integration of national guidance meant that assurance around evidence-based care was reliant on informal processes and professional judgement. This reduced the ability to systematically monitor quality or benchmark against external standards.

Staff worked effectively across roles and with external partners to deliver coordinated imaging services. Radiographers, administrative staff, and radiologists collaborated well, supported by regular team meetings and clear communication channels. Radiologists were integrated into the service through practising privileges and were part of the local NHS trust rota, which enabled continuity of care and access to specialist expertise.

There was evidence of strong operational links with the local NHS trust, including shared systems such as the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and the electronic record system used for patients, which supported timely access to imaging and reporting. While formal multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings were not routinely held on site, radiologists were available for consultation and escalation of findings. The service was flexible in accommodating patients across sites when needed, and staff told us that they had good working relationships with referring clinicians.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

The service had a structured audit programme in place, aligned with Quality Standard for Imaging (QSI), which included regular reviews of reporting turnaround times, administrative processes, and Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R) compliance. Audit results were reviewed in governance meetings and used to inform service improvements. For example, the service monitored reporting times for NHS and private patients, with most reports completed within 24 hours and no backlog observed at the time of our assessment.

The provider had implemented a formal internal peer review process. A standard operating procedure was in place, requiring monthly external audit of 10% of radiology reports, including a 10% review of each radiologist’s annual reporting workload. Outcomes from this process were discussed through local governance structures and used for learning and improvement. Radiologists also participated in the local NHS trust’s quality assurance systems. This included quality assurance checks by the trust’s PACS team and participation in trust-led audit activity. The service was also subject to external quality assurance through its QSI accreditation, with the most recent reassessment confirming compliance with key standards.

Although clinical outcome data were not routinely collected, the service demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement through audit, risk review, and staff feedback mechanisms.

Patient feedback was collected and reviewed, but there was limited evidence that it was used systematically to inform service development or outcome monitoring. The feedback provided by patients was overwhelmingly positive.

Consent processes were robust and consistently applied. Patients were provided with clear information about their procedures, including the use of contrast agents, and written consent was obtained where appropriate. We observed staff discussing procedures with patients and checking understanding prior to imaging. Consent for interventional procedures was obtained in a private setting by the radiologist, with appropriate documentation in place.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of informed consent and the Mental Capacity Act. Where concerns about capacity were identified, patients were referred to their referring clinician or supported through appropriate processes. Mental capacity was considered as part of the consent process, and staff were aware of the need to involve family members or legal representatives where necessary.

The service did not routinely scan patients under 18 years of age, and this was reflected in their operational model.