InHealth MRI - Wansbeck 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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.

Patients, and where appropriate their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information about the scans in formats which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback and knew how to raise concerns. The environment met the needs of patients with conditions that could create a barrier to access. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through staff training and close monitoring of feedback. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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 provider 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, for patients with hearing loss, scans could be adjusted to track their breathing by monitoring the movement of the diaphragm. This removed the need for patients to be able to hear or co-operate with verbal breathing instructions. This protocol increased the duration of the scan, and patients were informed of this during the consent process.

Staff, patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. The service had access to face-to-face interpreting services, or where this was not available due to short notice, telephone interpreters could be used.

There was a hearing loop installed in the department, and a selection of reading glasses were also available in the waiting room for patients to use if needed.

The service did not have a separate area for children and young people, but the department was very compact, and children were not allowed to be unaccompanied. The service had paper and crayons available for children to play with if needed.

We reviewed ten patient records to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. For example, one patient had callipers to help with mobility and these had to be removed before entering the MRI scanner. The scanning table was brought out of the department to reduce the distance the patient had to walk without the callipers. We also saw patient records where flags had been attached to alert the staff that the patient was claustrophobic so may need extra support.

We saw an example of written feedback from a claustrophobic patient who commended the supportive approach of the staff who assisted her, enabling her to go through with the scan.

The department was on the ground floor, and fully wheelchair accessible.

As per Royal College guidelines, private or self-pay patients were informed of the planned and possible costs ahead of the scan.

The provider 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, the service worked with other hospitals in the area to offer patients the opportunity to have their scan sooner if a slot was available in a different hospital if they were willing and able to travel a little further.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. For example, the service worked with cardiac physiologists to offer scanning lists for patients with cardiac pacemakers.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

The service was open for appointments seven days a week. Normal opening hours were between 8am – 8pm, but the service had recently extended their opening hours from 7am to 9pm on three days per week to meet patient demand.

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

The service provided information to patients about their appointment, what to expect from their scan, and a safety questionnaire by post before the appointment. This information could be provided in different languages and we saw examples of large-print and easy read versions. Most of the patients who visited the service on the day of our inspection were satisfied with the information they received; however not all had received information about the scan in advance.

People were made aware of the costs of any diagnostic and screening procedure, where they were self-pay or had medical insurance, and this was managed by a central team.

The provider 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.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about the scanning process.

Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care. We saw a leaflet providing information on how to make a complaint, and there was a poster in the waiting room giving information about how to provide feedback and how to complain. We were told that all patients were sent a link following their appointment asking for feedback. We saw examples of feedback provided over the three months prior to our inspection, and the responses were consistently positive. In the friends and family satisfaction test, 960 patients completed the survey and 98% of patients recommended the service.

Only one complaint had been received by the service in the last 12 months, and we saw evidence that this was shared in staff briefing with learning and actions taken from it. We were told that any complaints were dealt with locally in the first instance. If the complaint was unresolved, NHS patients could complain through the trust complaints process and then to the parliamentary ombudsman if they were still not satisfied. Private patients could escalate complaints to the provider and then to an independent sector complaints service if the provider was unable to resolve the complaint.

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

In the six months prior to our visit, the service offered 4197 scanning appointments. A total of 137 (3%) patients did not attend their appointments during this period.

The staff managed the department usage and occupancy for patient flow well.

Managers monitored waiting times. People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times were approximately five weeks for routine appointments and two weeks for urgent appointments, though staff told us that patients could opt to have an earlier appointment if they were willing to travel to a different site.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments cancelled, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible.

Most of the patients we spoke with during our inspection said that they had not had to wait long for an appointment and were very happy with the time scales. However, one patient reported having to wait three months for her appointment.

In the department, patients who had to wait beyond their appointment time were kept informed of the delay, but we did not witness any excessive or unnecessary delays during our visit.

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 inform service planning and delivery.

The service had an up to date Patient and Service User Accessibility Policy, which set out the process for offering, recording and implementing reasonable adjustments to anyone with protected characteristics.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreting services by phone, or if required a face to face interpreter could be booked in advance of the appointment.

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.

Patients were provided with information about how they would receive results and from whom, and any related follow up appointments.