Paul Strickland Scanner Centre

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs and that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that 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 people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

People told us they felt respected, supported and well-informed throughout their visit. We observed that staff communicated clearly, explained procedures in advance and provided written information about risks and aftercare. People told us they were given time to ask questions and felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

Care was adapted to meet individual needs. Staff made reasonable adjustments to support comfort and safety. For example, people with mobility needs were offered accessible changing facilities, hoists and adjustable chairs. For those with anxiety or claustrophobia, pre-visit tours and reassurance techniques were used to reduce distress, and sedation medication was available when needed. Appointment times were adjusted to suit people with diabetes or complex health needs, and quieter sessions were arranged for people with autism or those with sensory sensitivities.

The environment supported person-centred care. Clinical areas were clean, calm and accessible. Staff used communication aids, large-print documents and interpreter services to ensure everyone could understand and participate in their care. Staff described how they adapted explanations for people with learning disabilities, using visual prompts and step-by-step guidance.

Feedback from patients and carers was used to improve services. The complaints log we reviewed in the data request, showed that learning from feedback led to meaningful changes, such as improved communication about scan results, clearer information about contrast administration and updates to safeguarding procedures. A complaint about post-scan privacy had led to changes in the layout of the PET/CT suite and a review of patient flow processes.

Staff were trained to deliver inclusive, person-centred care. Overall mandatory training compliance was high across key modules, including equality, diversity and human rights, dementia awareness and the Mental Capacity Act. Completion of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism was progressing well, with an overall compliance rate of 88.5%. However, completion rates were lower among some staff groups. For example, radiology medical staff were at 94.7%, while administrative staff were slightly below target at 66.7%. Staff were also encouraged to attend external courses and conferences to enhance their knowledge of inclusive communication and cancer care.

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.

People received joined-up care across pathways. The service worked closely with referring clinicians, acute trusts and private providers to ensure imaging requests were prioritised appropriately. Radiographers and modality leads reviewed referrals daily to assess clinical urgency and support safe transitions between services. Reception and booking teams liaised directly with referrers to coordinate appointments, confirm eligibility, and share key information.

The service had robust processes for managing and coordinating PET/CT imaging during periods of operational challenge. Contingency plans were in place for scanner breakdowns and radiopharmaceutical shortages, supported by a formal prioritisation protocol. Staff told us they reviewed scanning lists daily and rearranged appointments based on clinical urgency, making sure that patients on cancer pathways were prioritised. When tracer supply was disrupted, urgent slots were reserved, and referring clinicians were informed promptly of any delays. Staff maintained clear documentation of changes within patient records to support continuity of care.

Leaders worked collaboratively with the host trust through weekly coordination meetings to review referrals and reporting timelines. These meetings enabled timely escalation of urgent cases and supported continuity across diagnostic and treatment pathways.

People told us they felt informed and supported throughout their care. Staff explained procedures clearly and communicated updates promptly, particularly where appointments or reports were delayed. Following feedback about delays to a PET scan, leaders prioritised the case and brought the appointment forward to reduce anxiety. Weekend scanning lists were introduced to help manage backlogs and improve access during periods of high demand.

Care pathways were well defined for both NHS and private patients. Costs and payment processes were transparent, and people were informed about insurance coverage and self-pay options before their appointment. The service worked with all major insurance providers and maintained open communication with patients about fees and scheduling.

Systems were in place to prevent missed appointments and maintain continuity. Did Not Attend (DNA) rates remained low. When people missed appointments, staff contacted them directly to rearrange or referred patients back to their clinician if multiple appointments were missed. Booking staff discussed transport and accessibility needs during scheduling, and longer appointment times were offered where required. Interpreter and translation services were available, and staff adapted communication to meet individual needs.

Staff demonstrated awareness of the diverse needs of the local community. Reasonable adjustments were made for people with mobility limitations, dementia, autism or sensory sensitivities. Accessible seating, hoists and quiet waiting areas were available, and people with anxiety were invited for pre-scan visits to familiarise themselves with the environment.

People received care that was coordinated, timely and responsive to their individual needs. Staff worked collaboratively across services to maintain continuity, reduce delays and support equitable access. Systems for triage, communication and contingency planning were embedded into practice, helping to ensure care was safe, joined-up and aligned with people’s preferences.

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

People received clear and timely information about their care and treatment. Before appointments, staff sent written details about procedures, risks and preparation requirements, including fasting guidance where relevant. Verbal explanations were provided on arrival, and staff checked people’s understanding before proceeding. Patients told us they had opportunities to ask questions and that staff explained procedures in ways they could easily understand.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Information was available in multiple formats, including large print, easy-read and translated leaflets for people whose first language was not English. Interpreter services were accessible through Language Line, and staff used communication aids such as pictorial cards and written prompts to support understanding. People were encouraged to bring carers or family members to appointments, and staff ensured that carers were updated with patient consent where appropriate.

Information governance systems were robust. Staff received annual data protection training and demonstrated awareness of confidentiality requirements. Personal data was stored securely on electronic systems, and access was restricted to authorised staff. Records were password-protected, and audit trails were maintained to ensure accountability.

The introduction of an upgraded Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) improved the secure transfer of scan images and reports between the service and referring clinicians. This reduced delays, supported continuity of care and ensured that referrers received accurate diagnostic information promptly.

The leadership team at Paul Strickland Scanner Centre investigates complaints directly, ensuring patients have multiple routes and accessible ways to seek support or clarification about their care. They provide their own complaints and feedback process, with clear information available online and in the waiting area. People were encouraged to share feedback or raise concerns via a dedicated contact form and leaflets titled; Comments, Compliments, Concerns and Complaints were displayed in the waiting area and available online.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as required, including safeguarding referrals, radiation incident reports and duty of candour notifications. Records confirmed that these were made promptly and in line with statutory and organisational policy.

Information about the service, including referral pathways, accessibility, and patient rights, was published on the provider’s website. The website also offered practical information such as maps, parking details, and guidance for people attending from other hospitals or referring trusts.

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

People were supported to share their views and raise concerns in a safe, open, and accessible way. The service made it easy for people to give feedback, raise complaints, and contribute to service improvement.

In the past 12 months, the service received 34 complaints, of which several were upheld. None were referred to, or upheld by, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman during the same period. There were no specific service areas identified as outliers in complaint volume or severity. Complaints were managed in accordance with the organisation’s policy, which set out clear procedures for recording, investigating, and responding within agreed timescales.

Complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where responses were delayed, complainants were kept informed and provided with updates on progress. The chief executive officer reviewed and signed all complaint responses, ensuring consistency, transparency, and oversight of learning outcomes.

Themes identified from complaint analysis included delays in scan reporting, communication issues, and booking errors. Each theme was reviewed through the governance process, with actions recorded and monitored for completion. For example, following a complaint about delayed scan reporting, additional radiologists were recruited, and the reporting workflow was reviewed to improve turnaround times. In another case, a complaint about a missed finding resulted in a peer review of the case and the removal of an external radiologist from the outsourced reporting panel.

Staff were trained to handle concerns professionally and to resolve issues promptly wherever possible. They described how they used active listening and de-escalation skills when people raised concerns and how they offered apologies and explanations when things went wrong. People said staff were approachable and willing to listen, and that they felt comfortable raising concerns about their care.

Learning from complaints was shared consistently across the service. Complaints and compliments were discussed at governance meetings, daily huddles, and team briefings, with key messages recorded in action logs and shared through internal communications. Staff told us that feedback was used to inform training, update local procedures, and improve patient communication. Examples of changes included better documentation of telephone calls, clearer patient information on scan timelines, and strengthened vetting processes for referrals.

Staff were confident that raising concerns would not negatively affect them or the people they cared for. Leaders promoted a no-blame culture and viewed complaints as opportunities for learning and improvement. People who made complaints were treated fairly and were not disadvantaged in their access to care or follow-up support.

As a result, people experienced a service that listened, learned, and used complaints constructively to enhance quality and experience.

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

Leaders and staff recognised where inequalities could occur and took proactive steps to remove barriers to access, ensuring people received care according to their clinical needs.

Access pathways were clear for both NHS and private patients. Information about referrals, funding arrangements and scheduling was transparent, and people were offered the first available appointment. If unable to attend, they were supported to reschedule. Did Not Attend (DNA) rates remained low, reflecting effective communication and patient engagement.

Staff identified and addressed barriers to equitable access. For those who were digitally excluded, staff provided in-person and telephone booking support. Reception staff offered practical help, such as confirming appointments, providing printed maps and offering directions for visitors unfamiliar with the site.

Urgent and unplanned imaging was prioritised effectively. Dedicated MRI and PET slots were reserved for time-critical cases, such as suspected cord compression and cancer staging. Staff worked with referring clinicians to ensure that urgent referrals were escalated promptly, and results were shared without delay. People awaiting hospital transport were supported and supervised until safely collected by their escort or chaperone.

Leaders and staff were alert to inequalities and took action to mitigate them. They recognised the impact of rising demand, workforce pressures and radiopharmaceutical shortages, particularly within PET services. A formal prioritisation protocol was in place to ensure people on cancer pathways were protected. Additional weekend lists were scheduled to manage backlogs, and urgent capacity was preserved for unplanned care needs.

To sustain equitable access and reduce reporting delays, the service used outsourcing and teleradiology arrangements. Additional radiologists were recruited to improve reporting turnaround times. Governance oversight was maintained for all outsourced work, with issues identified through audit and review meetings escalated to the external provider’s governance lead. Audit data from April to June 2025 showed that 96% of reports were completed within 72 hours, with no clinically significant harm-level discrepancies identified. The service met national performance standards for diagnostic imaging, ensuring timely reporting and prioritisation of urgent cases.

Access information was inclusive and accessible. The service’s website provided clear directions, transport advice and contact information to support people attending from other hospitals. Staff regularly reviewed patient feedback to identify and address access barriers, such as improving signage and updating online booking guidance.

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.

Staff showed an awareness of discrimination and inequality. They told us how they adapted care to meet individual needs and made sure that people felt listened to and respected. Adjustments included extended appointment times, the use of quiet rooms for people receiving complex or distressing news, and accessible facilities for people with mobility needs. Bariatric patients were accommodated using wide-bore scanners to ensure safety and dignity, and reasonable adjustments were made to support people’s comfort and privacy during imaging.

Language and communication barriers were addressed effectively. These measures made sure people were able to participate meaningfully in decisions about their care.

Leaders and staff were proactive in identifying and addressing inequalities. They reviewed patient and staff feedback to understand barriers to equitable care and directed resources where needed.

Policies and governance systems reflected a commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion. Equality impact assessments were undertaken for new or revised policies to ensure they did not disadvantage people with protected characteristics. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights, and compliance was monitored through governance reporting. Training content was linked to practical examples of reducing bias, promoting respect, and understanding how discrimination can affect people’s experiences of healthcare.

Staff were also alert to people who may be more vulnerable due to mental capacity, disability or anxiety. People were offered pre-appointment tours to familiarise themselves with the environment, and mild sedatives were provided when clinically appropriate. Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act and safeguarding policies, using best-interest processes to ensure people’s wishes and rights were upheld.

Although the service did not provide round-the-clock access, care pathways were coordinated with referring hospitals to maintain continuity. Reception staff supported patients awaiting transport and liaised with hospital wards to ensure safe supervision and handover. Information about the service was accessible both online and in print, including maps, transport advice and a virtual guide to help first-time visitors.

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

People received clear and accessible information to help them prepare for their care and treatment. Before appointments, staff provided written and verbal information about what to expect, including scan procedures, timelines for results and contact details for further support. People said staff took time to answer questions and offered reassurance, helping them feel informed and confident about their care.

Staff told us they showed empathy and sensitivity when supporting people with complex or life-limiting conditions. Given the service’s key role in cancer diagnosis and monitoring, staff understood the emotional impact of uncertainty and communicated results with care and respect. They worked closely with referring clinicians to ensure timely sharing of results and continuity of care, particularly for those approaching the end of life or undergoing treatment planning.

Care planning took account of people’s individual circumstances, wishes and preferences. Staff described how they supported people to make informed decisions, considering their clinical needs as well as their emotional and psychological wellbeing. Information was provided in formats that supported understanding, including written materials, accessible leaflets and interpreter services where required.

The service supported collaborative planning across care pathways. Radiologists and modality leads liaised with oncologists, surgeons and other specialists to ensure diagnostic results informed treatment decisions in a coordinated way. For people with complex needs, results were discussed at multidisciplinary team meetings, ensuring that care was personalised and aligned to people’s choices and clinical priorities.

People and their families were encouraged to think about the future in ways that supported hope and continuity. The service promoted legacy giving as a means of funding innovation and improvement in diagnostic care. Gifts in Wills had supported the purchase of new scanners and research fellowships, directly improving diagnostic quality and future patient outcomes.

Although the service did not directly provide end-of-life care or DNACPR planning, its diagnostic role was essential in supporting these conversations. By delivering timely, accurate scan results and collaborating closely with referrers, staff helped ensure that people and clinical teams could make decisions about treatment and palliative care in a compassionate and well-informed way.