Hartlepool MRI Unit

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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways which 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 patient’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information in a way that people could understand, including special resources for children.

Patients were invited to give feedback on their care, and they were confident that if they had any concerns, the service would take them seriously. The service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was appropriate to meet the needs of people which could create a barrier to access. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities, by service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback.

The service supported staff well-being and staff told us they felt supported.

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.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental ill-health, learning disabilities and dementia.

The service used an interpreting service, which was booked in advance, so that staff, patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. Staff told us that the interpreting service also helped with appointment bookings for patients who did not speak English.

The waiting area had seating available and toilet facilities for patients and visitors. There was not a separate area for children and young people, but the service had worked with the paediatrics department to design an age-appropriate video for children to prepare them for their scan, and there were toys available for children to play with if required. Managers also told us that staff could visit young in-patients on the children’s ward, to carry out the pre-scan checks, to reduce the length of time a child had to spend in the department.

The service was located on the ground floor and had wheelchair access throughout. There was also a hearing loop installed.

We reviewed five patient records to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. We saw that patients were always offered adjustments such as lumbar support pads and headphones for comfort.

Private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care they were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect 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.

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 local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant. For example, stakeholders told us that the service always prioritised urgent scan requests and showed flexibility to different patient needs. Stakeholders also told us that administrative staff tried where possible to meet patient requests on scan location and appointment time, showing empathy for complex patient situations and working around the patient whenever possible.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention, for example allowing extra time for particularly anxious patients, or patients with learning disabilities or dementia. Anxious patients were able to visit the department in advance of their appointment to ‘try’ the scanner to reduce their anxiety. The service also permitted anxious patients to use fidget toys whilst in the scanner. Staff told us that if patients wanted to be alone in the waiting room, for example those with autism who might find waiting with other people distressing, their appointment would be scheduled around in-patient appointments to facilitate this. The service also made sure there were always female staff available to attend to women having breast scans.

Managers made sure that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted so that they had the opportunity to make another appointment. If the patient did not attend a second appointment, the referrer was made aware so that the patient could be followed up.

The service was open for appointments from 8am until 8pm seven days per week and had administrative support from 8am until 6pm six days per week from Monday to Saturday.

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

A range of information was available on the provider’s website about MRI scans and procedures, such as the use of different contrasts, that is dyes injected to enhance scans. There were also leaflets available about MRI scans, infection prevention and control and data security in the waiting area. Written information was not available in different languages. However, the service was able to offer verbal translation of all written materials to the patient. Information could also be provided in Braille format.

Patients were made aware of the costs of any diagnostic and screening procedure where they were self-pay or had medical insurance. If patients had medical insurance, the provider contacted the insurance company on behalf of the patient to make sure that the scan was covered before carrying out the scan.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Leaders told us that all patients were sent an email after their appointment requesting feedback, and paper feedback forms were also available in the department.

There were no formal complaints to or about the service in the twelve months prior to our inspection. Leaders told us that any complaints would be dealt with in an open and transparent manner, with feedback provided to the complainant, and learning disseminated to staff.

NHS patients could complain directly to the service, or through the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS). If they were not happy with the response to their complaint, they could escalate complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman. Private patients could complain directly to the service and escalate complaints to the provider.

Leaders told us that the service was working with the provider to recruit Patient Safety Partners to help improve the service. These would be members of the public who would be employed to advise the service about what could be done to make the patient experience better.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service scanned a total of 4934 patients in the last six months from 1 January to 30 June 2026. A total of 3.3% of patients did not attend their appointment during this time.

Managers monitored waiting times. The average waiting time for a routine scan in the last six months was 39 days. The average waiting time for an urgent scan was 18 days, and the average waiting time for patients on the cancer pathway was 5 days. Managers from the service attended regular meetings with the provider and the trust where waiting list initiatives were discussed, and the service was working closely with a new community diagnostic centre opened by the trust, to reduce waiting times. Managers told us about initiatives to reduce the cardiac scan waiting times, which included training extra staff to improve reporting times, creating additional scanning lists and working with trust partners to combine waiting lists so that resources were shared.

The service staff managed the department usage and occupancy for patient flow well. Patients we spoke with during the inspection did not raise any concerns about the length of time they were kept waiting for their appointment.

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 trust monitored patient demographics, access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities and provided feedback to the service.

We saw an example of service improvement which involved installing a new parking meter beside the entrance of the MRI unit. This followed feedback from patients that it was difficult for elderly or less mobile patients to access the existing meters because they were sited too far from the unit.

Patients who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreting services, which could be arranged in advance with face-to-face interpreters, or via the telephone if there was no advanced notice.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were provided with information about how they would receive results and from whom, and any related follow-up appointments. They were told approximately when to expect the results.