Paul Strickland Scanner 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

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement.

This Key Question was not rated at the last inspection. At this assessment the rating was good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them

Staff completed assessments in a timely way and adapted care to meet individual circumstances.

We reviewed 10 patient records as part of this assessment. Each included relevant clinical information, consent documentation and details of any adjustments made to support the person’s needs. Staff completed health and safety questionnaires at booking and confirmed medical history, allergies and risk factors on arrival.

Comprehensive pre-scan assessments were completed to identify risks and ensure safe care. Radiographers reviewed referral information to confirm that imaging requests were appropriate and clinically justified. Care plans were personalised, reflecting individual needs such as anxiety, mobility or health conditions. For example, scan times were adjusted for people with diabetes, and extended appointments were arranged for people requiring additional support or sedation.

Translation services and communication aids were available for people who did not speak English as a first language or had learning disabilities. Easy-read information was provided when required. Staff received training to support people with communication needs and to make reasonable adjustments in line with equality and accessibility standards.

Risks were identified and reduced through structured safety processes. The CT Pause and Check audit demonstrated 98% compliance with key safety checks, including identity verification, pregnancy screening and contrast justification. Where minor gaps were identified such as alerts not being consistently checked before contrast administration refresher training and procedural updates were implemented. New prompts were added to the radiology system to ensure alerts were reviewed before each scan, improving compliance and safety.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff assessed and met people’s needs for food, drink and specialist nutrition or hydration. A water fountain and tea station were available in the patient waiting area and were observed to be clean and well maintained. People were offered hot drinks and biscuits following procedures, and staff directed or escorted them to nearby cafés within the main hospital when required. People who needed to fast before their scan received clear written and verbal instructions in advance to ensure safe preparation.

Clinical decisions were based on evidence and audit findings. Staff participated in regular audit cycles, including referral accuracy, consent, dose optimisation, radiation exposure, and contrast safety. Audit results were shared through governance meetings and quality improvement sessions. Action plans were developed, implemented and re-audited to ensure sustained improvement.

Policies and protocols were regularly reviewed to support safe practice. Each imaging modality had a designated lead responsible for reviewing and updating scanning protocols in line with national guidance and multidisciplinary team feedback. These reviews ensured that safety information was current and that procedures reflected best practice.

The service had access to a full range of specialists, including radiologists, physicists, radiographers, advanced practitioners and administrative support. Staff worked collaboratively with external teams such as oncology, neurology and surgical services to ensure coordinated care for people with complex needs.

New staff received a structured induction aligned with national standards, including the Care Certificate framework for support roles.

Staff received additional training for specific roles. For example, consultants completed additional training such as the Mental Capacity Act, patient safety, and equality and diversity.

Specialist training was provided for staff involved in contrast administration, radiation safety and advanced imaging techniques. Managers encouraged staff to lead audits, contribute to research, attend conferences and pursue postgraduate qualifications. Where poor performance was identified, it was addressed promptly and constructively through supervision and competency reviews.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People benefited from joined-up care and clear communication between staff, teams and partner organisations. Multidisciplinary collaboration was embedded across the service. Radiologists, modality leads, booking teams and governance staff worked together to plan and deliver care. Service improvement groups met regularly to review risks, update protocols and share learning.

Staff held daily handovers and team briefings to discuss workflow, patient safety and operational updates. Handovers were structured and supported by shared documentation, ensuring continuity and safe management of cases. Radiographers escalated findings to radiologists, who communicated significant or urgent results directly to referring clinicians. A two-tier flagging system supported timely escalation of critical findings.

The service maintained effective communication with external partners. Staff liaised with acute and community teams to ensure appropriate follow-up and continuity of care. Patients requiring urgent review or onward referral were directed to specialist services such as the Acute Oncology Service. Staff also worked closely with partner trusts to coordinate emergency support, safeguarding concerns and patient transport.

Team relationships were described as positive and collaborative. Clinical leads met weekly to coordinate activity and address operational pressures. Staff said leaders were visible and approachable, and they felt informed and supported in their roles.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

Staff explained imaging procedures and results clearly, helping people understand their care and next steps. Radiologists contacted referring teams directly when urgent or unexpected findings were identified, ensuring timely follow-up and continuity of care. Booking teams coordinated appointments around treatment schedules to reduce disruption and support people to remain engaged in their care.

Information was available in accessible formats, including leaflets and pre-appointment guidance. Staff used these to promote understanding of preparation requirements, contrast safety and post-procedure advice. People said they felt well informed and reassured throughout their visit.

The service supported people to access smoking cessation, advice and screening programmes through signposting, to appropriate health promotion services where needed. For example, patients were referred to clinical teams or support services for further advice and follow-up care. Staff also contributed to research projects focused on improving diagnostic imaging, patient experience and environmental sustainability, including studies on PET imaging efficiency and workplace wellbeing.

People were supported to make informed decisions about their health and to stay involved in their care. Staff communicated effectively, promoted understanding and contributed to research that supported healthier outcomes and improved service delivery.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We saw there were systems in place to measure performance, benchmark against standards and drive improvement through audit, learning and governance oversight.

Staff used recognised tools and protocols to monitor clinical performance and detect deterioration. MRI and CT scanners underwent daily and quarterly quality assurance checks, supported by medical physicists who verified results and confirmed compliance with national standards. Scanning was suspended if safety or image quality thresholds were not met.

Technology supported effective care delivery and rapid communication. Radiologists used secure digital systems to access and review imaging results, with automated alerts for urgent findings. Blood test results and renal function data were available electronically, ensuring safe use of contrast and timely clinical decisions.

Radiologists participated in regular peer review and discrepancy meetings to discuss learning and promote consistency in reporting. Audit activity included referral accuracy, contrast safety, and compliance with escalation protocols for significant findings. Learning was shared at governance meetings and quality improvement sessions.

The Audit and Risk Committee and Board of Trustees provided oversight of quality metrics, incident trends and risk management. Findings were used to refine protocols and strengthen clinical governance.

Patient feedback and complaints were also monitored to identify themes and learning. People consistently described staff as professional and kind, and said communication was clear. Where feedback highlighted improvements, such as the need for clearer signage and enhanced accessibility, actions were implemented and monitored.

People received care that was safe, consistent and continuously improving. Staff used technology, audit and governance to monitor performance, identify risks and improve outcomes. Continuous review and feedback ensured that both clinical standards and patient expectations were met.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People received care that respected their autonomy, rights and individual preferences. Staff applied the principles of informed consent consistently and acted in people’s best interests when capacity was impaired.

Staff used effective tools to support good clinical practice. The Clinical Consent Policy ensured consent was obtained before all procedures and documented in line with national guidance. Routine imaging followed a single-stage consent process, while complex or contrast-enhanced procedures followed a two-stage process, with signed forms scanned into the radiology information system.

Staff took practical steps to enable people to make their own decisions. They explained procedures clearly and used accessible formats, interpreters and extended appointment times where needed. Quiet spaces and visual resources were used to help people with learning disabilities or autism feel comfortable and involved in decision-making.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and assessed capacity on a decision-specific basis. Where people lacked capacity to consent, staff acted in their best interests and recorded decisions clearly, taking account of their wishes, feelings, culture and history. Staff completed best interest documentation in line with policy and ensured this was shared appropriately with referring teams.

Consent processes were consistent and well-governed. For most procedures, staff obtained verbal or written consent and documented it in the radiology information system. More complex imaging requiring contrast followed a two-stage process, with written consent signed by both the clinician and the patient.

Audit data confirmed strong compliance with consent documentation standards. A review of over 350 consent records showed 96% completeness, an improvement from the previous year. Staff were reminded to check and countersign forms and further audit cycles were planned to maintain high standards.

Training on consent was embedded in induction and refreshed regularly. Staff received education on the legal, ethical and clinical aspects of consent, including Good Clinical Practice training for research-related procedures. Managers monitored compliance and addressed gaps through supervision and audit feedback.