Cobalt Health

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked people’s privacy and dignity was respected, they understood they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Outstanding.

This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

Description: We always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

4. We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We saw staff took the time to interact with people who used the service in a respectful and considerate way and gave them all the time they needed to understand information provided. We saw staff allowing patients to sit quietly, uninterrupted, to read through information and questionnaires required for MRI scans. The service mirrored this in their interactions with other partner organisations and NHS trusts.

There was an exceptional, visible and values driven culture of person‑centred and non‑discriminatory care. Staff demonstrated deep cultural sensitivity and proactively challenged inequity, creating an environment where every person feels respected, understood and safe. This was reflected in some of the research projects undertaken by staff to develop a gown for breast imaging which helped patients retain more privacy and dignity whilst undergoing imaging. The project had been created following patient feedback that breast imaging could make them feel very vulnerable and frightened.

Staff ensured when intimate personal care and support was given service users were offered the option of a chaperone. Staff ensured, where possible, chaperones were the same gender as the service user.

Service users were able to speak to the receptionist or radiographer without being overheard and there were plenty of additional rooms and space where sensitive conversations could be held if needed or requested. This included if a patient became distressed.

The department generally did not see anyone under the age of 16, except for some specialist imaging. Staff explained children over the age of 12 were invited into the examination room on their own so they could speak to staff without a parent present. This was helpful where staff needed to enquire about the possibility of pregnancy before any imaging.

Staff responded in a compassionate, timely, and appropriate way when people experienced physical pain, discomfort or emotional distress. We saw staff sit and hold patients’ hands and were genuinely caring and unrushed.

Staff were compassionate and sensitive in their response to patients who might be frightened, confused or phobic about medical procedures or any aspect of their care. Patients we spoke with told us they felt seen and had things explained in a way they understood. In MRI, patients were invited to see the scanner if they were concerned about claustrophobia.

People were given appropriate and timely support and information to cope emotionally with their care, treatment or condition. They were advised how to find other support services, such as linking in with cancer support services, based at the main hospital site.

Staff were highly motivated, emotionally intelligent and deeply committed to delivering care, which was kind, respectful and protective of people’s dignity. Staff went the extra mile and established genuine connections with the people they cared for. Patients told us they had been treated with compassion and truly felt heard. Staff explained they took personal responsibility to ensure they tried everything they could to achieve the best possible outcomes and imaging for their patients.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of people and this information was recorded and shared as needed. For example, use of pronouns and preferred names was some of the information recorded. In another example, we were told how staff supported patient to wear metal free clothing for MRI scans to ensure they did not have to undress fully.

Staff members displayed understanding and a non-judgemental attitude towards (or when talking about) patients who had mental health, learning disabilities, autism or dementia diagnoses. Staff shared their own experience of loved ones living with some of these conditions which they told us helped them shape how they spoke to people in similar circumstances.

The service utilised patient surveys, and questions were sufficiently open ended to allow people to express themselves. A selection of feedback provided showed patients were very happy with their care. For example, patients described the service as “Efficient, friendly and quick”, “Everything was excellent” and “Everything was explained and clear with empathy and kindness”.

Description: We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

4. We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff identified and met the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. Services were delivered, made accessible and coordinated to take account of the needs of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Staff made reasonable adjustments so people with a disability could access and use services on an equal basis to others.

Staff worked across services to coordinate people's involvement with families and carers and arrange appointments for the same day if possible.

Staff communicated with people, so they understood their care, treatment and condition and any advice given. Easy read leaflets were available in all areas we visited plus there were leaflets in other languages. Patients were clear and staff communicated with them in a way they understood.

Staff sought accessible ways to communicate with people including the use of face-to-face translation where a patients’ first language was not English.

The Cobalt Health website had an inbuilt function to translate all information online into a variety of languages ensuring all patients could access all online information in advance of their scans.

Description: We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and well-being.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

3. We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being.

People were empowered and supported, where necessary, to use and link with support networks and advocacy and patients were signposted to various support groups for long Covid, cancer and some carers networks.

Staff made sure people who used services and those close to them were able to find further information or ask questions about their care and treatment.

Appointments were appropriately timed and staff told us they felt they had time to speak with patients and answer any questions. All patients received written information about where they would get their results and what to do if they had any questions or concerns following their examination. Staff had access to communication aids to help patients.

Imaging and treatment options were discussed with people, and they were encouraged to be part of the decision-making process.

The bookings team called all patients in advance of their scan to obtain as much essential information as possible to ensure everything a patient needed was available for their scan. This included coordination with GPs for any medication such as pain relief, which might be needed to help a patient tolerate a scan.

Support with transport was available to service users with mobility issues, and the service had issued a comprehensive guide to public transport links to the site, including free onsite parking.

Patients told us they felt listened to, respected and had their views considered.

Description: We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

4. We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional in how they listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Following their tests, service users understood how and when they would receive their test results and had received copies of letters sent between the hospital and their GP. Service users described knowing who to contact if they were worried about anything following their scan or procedure.

In areas where ethnic minority groups formed a significant proportion of the local population, there were processes to aid translation, both verbal and written.

Where people’s needs and choices were not being met, this was identified and used to inform how services were improved and developed. For example, we reviewed a complaint about a 7-week reporting delay. The service investigated and acted in response to the concern and implemented a new active escalation policy to ensure any patient listed as unreported automatically flagged with the consultant after 5 days.

The department was clearly signposted with volunteers to help.

There were multiple quiet areas or examination rooms where patients could wait if they found busy environments distressing. However, the whole service was calm and composed which patients and staff described as wonderful.

People had timely access to initial assessment, test results, diagnosis, and one stop clinics in the lung screening programme. People told us they could access care and treatment at a time to suit them.

Appointments were only cancelled or delayed when absolutely necessary and this was explained to people. Those cancelled were supported to access care and treatment again as soon as possible. For example, in PET/CT the department had links to multiple production reactors where they could obtain their radiopharmaceuticals if a reactor was out of use or there were other supply issues. Failure of the radiopharmaceutical at production phase was the most common reason for a scan being cancelled or re-arranged. By establishing links with other cyclotron reactors, the service could obtain radiopharmaceuticals from other places.

The service monitored waiting times for diagnostic waiting through a monthly return (DM01) which showed in February 2026, out of 578 CT and MRI examinations, 529 (91.5%) were scanned in under 7 weeks. This compared well with other similar services. DM01 data is a national report on the 15 most common diagnostic tests, including CT and MRI.

The service ensured it met local and national Key Performance Indicators for report turnaround times and reported on them to the host NHS trusts it provided services for.

Service users told us they were offered a choice of appointments and there were some same day appointments available if needed for urgent scans.

Good quality diagnostic images and reports were available to cancer multi-disciplinary teams in a timely way. Radiologists employed by Cobalt attended these meetings which meant they could ensure scans were reported in advance of the meetings they attended.

Patients told us they felt listened to and had their views considered. For example, one patient had not been able to tolerate their MRI scan due to severe pain. The team had worked with the patient and their family to ensure the GP was fully involved and could prescribe pain relief. The team rebooked the patient on a weekend when the list was quieter to give them extra time.

Description: We care about and promote the well-being of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic are

4. We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the well-being of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

There was a monthly staff newsletter and quarterly well-being round up which celebrated staff achievements and feedback plus various other initiatives including health and well-being champions and regular chief executive updates.

There were cooperative, supportive and appreciative relationships among staff. Staff and teams worked collaboratively, shared responsibility and resolved conflict quickly and constructively. All staffing types were treated with respect and supported, including smaller more remote teams such as the lung screening team. Where the senior management team had not gotten communication right, this was acknowledged and rectified. For example, water tanks were removed from mobile CT scanners following identification of an enhanced Legionella risk. Staff did not feel this had been clearly communicated which managers acknowledged and took steps to ensure the reasons for the changes were better communicated, which helped staff understand.

Staff were actively engaged, and their views were reflected in the planning and delivery of services and in shaping the culture.

The service undertook an annual staff survey which showed a 68% response rate in 2024. The survey identified areas for improvement including a perceived lack of recognition and poor communication. Leaders developed an action plan-based on the findings which we saw had been completed by the end of 2025. The current staff survey had been delayed due to changes in senior leadership and was being ratified by an external company at the time of our assessment.

Staff did not work alone. In all areas we visited, staff worked as a team. Staff felt the work booked for each scanner was appropriate and allowed time to carry out safety checks necessary before scanning. Staff and patients did not feel rushed. Where staff had reported feeling rushed, especially at the CDC sites, senior staff had meet with the host NHS trust to explain the limitations of the scanners and make lists more manageable, whilst maintaining patient safety and staff well-being.