Paul Strickland Scanner Centre

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 that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that 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 remained good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for and were treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Feedback from patients we spoke with was consistently positive. They commented that they “always received polite and courteous treatment from all staff at the centre”. People also commented that they felt staff listened to them and all patients were satisfied with the care they had received, and said staff treated them well and with kindness.

The service used comment cards to gather feedback. Posters with QR codes were also displayed to encourage responses. Data we reviewed showed that between May and August 2025 the centre had received 643 positive comment cards/QR code responses. We also saw evidence that staff acted on the feedback they received from patients. For example, we saw that text message appointment reminders were introduced in response to feedback from patients.

There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of people using the services. They respected people’s privacy and dignity and took action to preserve this.

Staff told us there was a positive culture within the centre. All staff we spoke with were motivated to deliver care that was compassionate and promoted people’s dignity. Staff were observed to be kind and respectful to each other and those we spoke to consistently told us there was a supportive culture.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff treated people as individuals and considered any relevant protected characteristics. We saw examples of this during our inspection. This included where patients with learning disabilities needed to be accompanied by a family member. One patient told us staff had made accommodations when booking their appointment to avoid their glucose monitors being damaged by the scanner. Staff also told us they could extend appointment times for patients who needed it and sought to book patients with dementia and autism at quieter times to avoid distress.

Staff took account of people’s individual communication needs. Translation and interpreting services were available, and information was available in different formats.

Patients consistently told us that staff explained things to them in a way they could understand. The service had systems such as translation services to support communication.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff made sure people, and their families, understood their care and treatment. We observed staff with a caring approach; they ensured they spoke to people in ways that they could understand and in a way that was reassuring. Imaging was discussed with people, and they were encouraged to be part of the decision-making process. Staff ensured that information was shared, and patients were informed of the benefits and risks associated with their care, so that they could make informed choices.

Appointments were appropriately timed, and staff told us they felt they had time to speak with patients and answer any questions. Patients told us they felt listened to, respected and had their views considered.

Leaders told us that the waiting area had been refurbished to better meet people's needs. The plans for refurbishment were co-produced with patients to ensure their views and opinions were acted on.

The service 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.

We observed staff recognised when patients required additional support and acted promptly, for example providing extra time for explanations or adapting their communication to ensure patients fully understood why they were attending to have diagnostic testing or screening. Staff monitored people during their scan to make sure they were comfortable. They told us they would immediately pause the scan if a person requested this or if a person experienced any pain, anxiety, or discomfort.

Following their tests, people understood how and when they would receive their test results. There was an area where patients could wait if they found busy environments distressing or for staff to use if they needed to deliver test results compassionately.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services and made efforts to offer choice in appointments. This included offering accommodations and use of the wider bore MRI scanner to patients who were claustrophobic. Appointments were only cancelled or delayed when necessary and explained to people. Those cancelled were supported to access care and treatment again as soon as possible.

Patients told us they were offered a choice of appointments and there were some same day appointments available if needed, although these were largely to support urgent scanning requests.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

All staff we spoke to told us they felt valued, respected, enjoyed their roles and felt part of the team. Staff were consistently positive about the support they received from managers and service leads. They told us there were cooperative and supportive relationships among all staff. Staff and teams worked collaboratively and shared responsibility. All staffing types were treated with respect and understanding.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff were actively engaged, and their views were reflected in the planning and delivery of services. Staff felt supported in terms of their wellbeing and they were empowered to raise concerns. Leaders told us about changes to practice made because of feedback from staff.

Staff spoke positively about the opportunities available for progression, development and research. During the inspection leaders told us they had employed their first apprentice radiographer. They also offered several postgraduate qualifications for staff and provided opportunities for admin and clerical staff to gain experience chairing meetings such as the patient and experience group. All staff participated in producing statements for the centre's UKAS accreditation, to give staff opportunities to take part in quality improvement and service development.