Paul Strickland Scanner Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that safety was a priority for everyone, and that leaders embedded a culture of openness and collaboration. We checked that people were safe and protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The service had effective systems in place to manage risk, ensure safe staffing, and maintain a clean and well-equipped environment. There were no breaches of legal regulations.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. We scored the service

Staff understood how to report safety incidents and told us that there was an open and honest culture at Paul Strickland Scanning Centre. They were confident to raise concerns and aware of their responsibilities for reporting incidents and near misses. The service had a clear policy that set out how incidents should be reported, investigated and escalated. Staff were required to complete an internal incident form for all adverse events, including clinical and non-clinical incidents, accidents and near misses. Managers reviewed all incidents and took appropriate actions. Learning from incidents was shared and embedded across teams through meetings, briefings and governance discussions, helping to promote a consistent learning culture.

In the 12 months before the assessment, 69 incidents were reported. These included medication errors, equipment faults, data input errors and concerns about patient care. One near miss was identified and investigated promptly. No harm occurred, and learning from the investigation was shared with relevant staff. Team discussions reinforced the importance of accurate documentation and effective communication when recording key clinical details.

Staff told us they followed the duty of candour when things went wrong. We reviewed the service’s policy which required staff to acknowledge errors, provide factual explanations, apologise to people and share findings from investigations. Staff were debriefed and supported following serious incidents. A trained critical debriefer was available, and managers told us they considered staff wellbeing after an incident had occurred. Staff also told us they felt supported by colleagues and leaders after incidents.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service referral and admission booking process made sure patients received essential information before attendance. Radiographers and modality leads reviewed all referrals to confirm that people’s needs could be safely met. This included consideration of mobility, sedation, infection control and contrast agent suitability. Where required, staff contacted referrers to clarify clinical details or request additional information. People were informed in advance about preparation requirements, including fasting instructions, contrast administration and chaperone availability.

Transitions between services were well managed. Staff worked with healthcare and social care partners to ensure safe handovers. People with complex needs, or those requiring further support following their scan, were referred back to their clinical teams with the appropriate documentation. When adverse reactions occurred, or urgent care was required, staff escalated promptly to radiologists or emergency teams and ensured a full handover to relevant services. Urgent findings were managed through clear escalation protocols, which staff understood and followed.

People requiring chaperones were offered this option in line with the updated chaperone guidance (November 2024), which outlined safety considerations for MRI and radiation environments. Where delays occurred due to chaperone availability, appointments were rescheduled to maintain safety.

Radiation safety was well managed. radiation protection advisors (RPA) and medical physics experts (MPE) were accessible for specialist advice, and radiation protection supervisors (RPS) were appointed in all departments using ionising radiation. Local Rules and employer’s procedures were reviewed regularly and updated to ensure compliance with IR(ME)R requirements. They set out clear responsibilities for staff and outlined the processes in place to minimise unnecessary exposure and support the safe use of ionising radiation. Staff received training on IR(ME)R and the centre’s procedures, and their competency was monitored through audits and annual refresher updates.

People received care through well-managed systems and transitions. Risks were identified and mitigated through clear policies, collaborative working and a strong safety culture. Procedures were embedded into daily practice and regularly reviewed, ensuring people were protected from harm and experienced safe, continuous care across services.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

We reviewed staff training records which showed that all clinical staff had completed safeguarding training to Level 2 for adults and children, in line with national guidance. Managers and senior clinicians had also completed Level 3 training, which was in line with best practice standards set by the Royal College of Nursing. Training compliance was monitored through governance reports and reviewed during supervision. Staff told us the training was relevant and supported their understanding of how to recognise and respond to concerns.

Staff we spoke with were able to explain what constituted a safeguarding concern and knew how to make an alert. They were familiar with internal reporting procedures and external escalation routes, including how to contact local safeguarding teams when necessary. Staff gave examples of safeguarding alerts they had raised, and the actions taken to protect people at risk. They understood how to recognise signs of neglect and abuse and knew how to respond to concerns about adults or children at risk of significant harm.

The service had a comprehensive safeguarding policy for adults and children, which was up to date and aligned with national guidance. Staff worked in partnership with local authorities, NHS partners and social care agencies to manage concerns. Where people missed appointments or were identified as potentially vulnerable, staff followed a clear escalation process to ensure this was reviewed and communicated to the referrer.

Staff understood how to protect people from harassment and discrimination, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act, 2010. The services values promoted dignity, respect and equality. Staff told us they felt confident to challenge discriminatory behaviour and knew how to report inappropriate conduct.

Safeguarding and lone working policies outlined expectations for staff practice, and we saw evidence that these were followed. Staff knew how to raise concerns if they felt unsafe or witnessed unsafe behaviour.

There was no use of restraint, restrictive practice or blanket restrictions within the service. Staff told us that all care was delivered with consent and in line with people’s best interests. When a patient could not make decisions about their care, staff followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They used the correct consent process and had implemented a consent form in line with the service’s policy to make sure decisions were made in the patient’s best interests.

Staff told us that they felt well supported by the safeguarding leads and that advice was easily available. Information on how to contact the safeguarding lead and local authority was displayed in staff areas. Safeguarding was a standing item on governance and team meeting agendas, where updates and learning were shared.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had the knowledge, skills and confidence to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns. Systems and oversight arrangements ensured that concerns were reported, investigated and shared appropriately. This promoted a culture of safety, dignity and respect for everyone using the service.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People told us they felt informed, supported and safe throughout their visit. Staff communicated clearly to help people understand their care and treatment and involved them in managing risks related to their procedures. The scanner interface could be displayed in different languages, and staff used visual prompts to support understanding for people with communication difficulties or additional needs.

Risk assessments were carried out before imaging. Admin booking staff completed safety questionnaires and highlighted any concerns to modality leads. Radiographers followed the Society of Radiographers’ Pause and Check guidance to verify people’s identity and confirm critical information before scanning. Consent was obtained before administering contrast, and when a person lacked capacity, staff acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act. MRI safety time-out forms were used to confirm identity and screening results before each scan, and implant safety audits were completed regularly to monitor compliance. Staff understood the risks associated with ionising radiation and MRI safety.

Urgent findings were managed through established escalation processes. Radiologists and modality leads worked closely with referrers to ensure that urgent or unexpected findings were promptly communicated to patients. Escalation protocols were in place for conditions such as pulmonary embolism, and staff could contact the Acute Oncology Service or other relevant teams for an immediate review.

People were encouraged and supported to give feedback on their care. The Patient Experience Group met monthly and included both staff and patient representatives. Feedback from surveys, comment cards and complaints was reviewed to identify learning and improve services. For example, patient feedback about waiting times and the environment had led to changes in reporting processes and refurbishment of the waiting area to improve accessibility and comfort.

Staff told us that people could bring a family member or carer to appointments, and inpatients were always accompanied by a chaperone or escort. Transport and translation needs were identified during booking and arranged where required. People were signposted to relevant support services for wellbeing, health information and patient support.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People were cared for in clean, well-maintained and appropriately equipped surroundings. Patient changing areas, cannulation bays and toilets were tidy, accessible and clearly signposted. A recent refurbishment improved the layout and accessibility of patient bays, helping to support comfort, privacy and dignity for people attending imaging scan appointments.

Environmental safety was well managed through robust systems and oversight. The service had a comprehensive fire safety policy, reviewed in March 2025, which included detailed evacuation plans for each scanner suite and departmental area. Fire wardens were trained and in place, and staff completed monthly checklists and participated in annual audits. Dual alarm protocols and horizontal evacuation strategies were embedded into training and operational planning. There was clear signage for patients and visitors to support safe transitions between areas.

Radiation safety was well managed and embedded across imaging modalities. Controlled areas were clearly marked with radiation warning signage, and access was restricted in line with the Ionising Radiation Regulations (2017). Staff wore personal dose monitoring badges, and audits of dose reference levels were undertaken by the medical physics team. Radiation risk assessments were reviewed regularly, and findings were reported through governance meetings. The Inclusive Pregnancy Status (IPS) form was used to support gender-inclusive screening for people of childbearing potential.

MRI safety procedures were robust. Before every MRI scan, staff carried out safety checks to make sure it was safe for the person to have the scan. They used a checklist and confirmed details about any implants or devices to prevent harm. All equipment was clearly labelled to indicate MRI safety status. Staff received regular training on MRI safety and emergency procedures and the emergency procedures were clearly defined. The MRI Local Rules outlined actions for specific events such as emergency evacuations and staff demonstrated good understanding of these protocols.

Hazardous materials and contrast agents were stored safely. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) items were secured in double-locked cupboards, and consumables were stored in clean, organised areas. Stock rotation systems ensured that contrast agents and consumables were used before expiry, reducing waste and risk.

Equipment maintenance was proactive and well governed. Scanners and injectors were calibrated and portable appliance tested (PAT) in line with manufacturer guidance. Fault logs were reviewed regularly, and staff followed a clear escalation process when faults occurred. If a scanner became unavailable, patients were reallocated to alternative scanners based on clinical urgency, ensuring minimal disruption to care.

Fire safety procedures were in place and well understood by staff. Staff received fire safety training and were familiar with evacuation routes and assembly points. A dual fire alarm system, shared with other services on site, had previously caused confusion during drills and activations. This issue had been escalated to the estates teams at both managing NHS trusts for review. However, at the time of inspection, the matter had not been resolved. Although the service had continued to monitor the situation, as part of their ongoing safety oversight.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to provide safe care that met people’s needs. Staffing levels and skill mix were reviewed regularly to reflect service demand and patient need. Managers used workforce data to monitor establishment levels, vacancies, turnover and sickness absence, and took action where risks were identified.

The team included radiographers, modality leads, consultants and administrative staff, supported by staff agency and locums who provided rotational cover to maintain flexibility across imaging modalities. During 2025, vacancy rates ranged between one and three whole-time equivalent (WTE) posts. Due to changes in consultant availability, shortfall gaps were covered through locum agency support and outsourced image reporting to maintain continuity of service. Sickness absence ranged from 3.7% to 9.5%, which leaders recognised was a high sickness rate and used wellbeing initiatives and internal support systems to promote staff health and reduce absence. Although, the impact on service delivery was limited because superintendent radiographers and senior staff provided cover when necessary, making sure that urgent imaging and reporting were not delayed.

We reviewed recruitment which showed staff leaving the service was low, and staff retention was described as good.

Managers could adjust staffing levels daily to take account of workload and case mix. Bank and agency staff were deployed where necessary to maintain safe staffing levels. These staff received a local induction and orientation to ensure they were familiar with the service and its safety procedures. Managers monitored the use of temporary staff to maintain consistency and oversight of quality.

Appropriate recruitment checks were completed before staff began work. This included references, right-to-work verification and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, renewed on a three-year cycle. New starters completed a structured induction programme tailored to their role, covering policies, equipment safety and emergency procedures. We reviewed staff training records which showed that all clinical staff completed anaphylaxis and Immediate Life Support (ILS) training to ensure safe response to emergencies.

Mandatory training compliance was high among clinical staff, with most radiographers achieving over 95% completion in core modules and no clinical staff falling below 75%. However, at the time of the assessment, compliance among non-clinical staff was lower at 60.6% (20 of 33 staff). Managers monitored training records closely and reminded staff when updates were due. We reviewed governance reports from April 2024 to September 2025, which showed that training completion was monitored across core safety modules, including infection prevention, safeguarding and patient safety awareness. Managers told us that staff-maintained training in line with their partner trust’s policies, and compliance was reviewed regularly.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal. By October 2025, 72.7% of staff had completed their annual appraisal, and all consultants were up to date with medical revalidation. Staff were supported to attend audits, conferences and postgraduate study.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Clinical areas were visibly clean, organised and well maintained. Cleaning schedules were up to date and confirmed regular cleaning of patient areas, including waiting rooms, changing areas, cannulation bays and toilets. Cleaning records showed consistent compliance with required frequencies. Equipment was labelled with visible, in-date ‘clean’ stickers. Consumables were rotated to ensure safe use and prevent waste.

Staff followed infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures, including effective hand hygiene, appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and safe handling of sharps and clinical waste. Staff received training in IPC, and daily and monthly hand hygiene audits were completed. Audit results were reviewed at governance meetings to support ongoing monitoring and improvement.

People who used the service, including those we spoke with during the assessment, told us the centre was clean, professional and felt safe. This was supported by our own observations and recent feedback collected through comment cards and online reviews.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happen.

The service followed safe and effective systems for medicines management in line with national guidance. Policies were in place for the transport, storage, administration and disposal of medicines, and staff followed these consistently to ensure people received safe care.

Medicines were stored securely in controlled areas. Drug cupboards were locked, and access was restricted to authorised staff. Controlled substances were stored in accordance with legislative requirements, and temperature-controlled medicines were kept in monitored fridges. Drug fridges were monitored daily, and ambient temperature checks were carried out across all imaging areas. Data loggers were used to track temperature trends and detect early deviations. When temperatures fell outside the recommended range, staff followed escalation procedures and quarantined affected stock pending pharmacy advice.

Stock rotation was completed on delivery to ensure older batches were used first. Batch numbers, expiry dates and administration details were recorded in the patient’s imaging record. Weekly ordering ensured contrast media remained available while minimising waste.

Safety checks were completed before scans involving contrast administration. Staff reviewed medical histories, confirmed cannula details and obtained consent. Medicines were prepared immediately before use and administered only by trained staff.

Radiographers worked under Patient Group Directions for certain contrast agents used in CT and MRI scans. Training records and signed PGDs were up to date. Staff told us they felt confident giving contrast and would escalate promptly to a radiologist or emergency team if needed.

Staff provided verbal and written instructions, checked for iodine allergies and ensured labels included the person’s name, dosage and relevant safety information. Supply records were scanned into the imaging system to support traceability.

Expired or unused medicines were returned to pharmacy for disposal. Weekly checks ensured that all stock remained in date, and any discrepancies were investigated.

Staff were encouraged to report medicine errors or near misses. Incidents were reviewed through governance meetings, and learning was used to strengthen practice and improve safety.