Spire Harrogate Clinic

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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service adopted a person-centred approach to care, ensuring patients were treated as individuals and involved in decisions about their care and treatment. During the assessment, we tracked 2 patients through their diagnostic journey and observed staff delivering care that reflected individual needs and preferences. Staff adapted their approach to support patients according to their individual preferences, needs and circumstances.

Patients who were anxious or unfamiliar with diagnostic procedures were offered opportunities to visit the department before their appointment to become familiar with the environment and equipment. Staff told us this approach helped reduce anxiety, improve patient confidence and build trusting relationships.

Reasonable adjustments were made in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 to ensure patients could access services and receive care that met their needs. Staff had completed mandatory training in safeguarding, learning disabilities, equality, diversity and inclusion, mental health and autism, which supported their ability to recognise and respond appropriately to the needs of people with complex conditions and additional support requirements.

Patients with autism spectrum disorder and other identified needs were recognised early in the patient pathway. This enabled staff to plan and adapt care in advance of appointments. Staff described how they considered individual communication needs, sensory sensitivities and personal routines when arranging appointments and delivering care. Adjustments included offering quieter appointment times, providing a calmer environment and using personalised communication approaches to improve patient engagement and reduce distress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service planned and delivered care in a way that recognised and responded to the diverse needs, preferences and circumstances of the people using it. Staff considered the needs of patients with protected characteristics and those who may be at increased risk of poorer outcomes, ensuring reasonable adjustments and appropriate support were available to promote equitable access and positive experiences of care.

Care was coordinated across patient pathways to support continuity and minimise barriers to access. Staff worked to ensure patients received the right diagnostic investigation at the right time and that information was shared appropriately to support ongoing treatment and follow-up care.

The service demonstrated effective partnership working with external organisations and stakeholders. Leaders told us they had developed collaborative relationships with local organisations, specialist support services and healthcare partners to improve accessibility, patient experience and service delivery. This multi-agency approach supported shared learning, coordinated care and the identification of opportunities to reduce health inequalities.

Examples of improvements resulting from partnership working included enhancements to service accessibility, development of dementia-friendly approaches, increased staff knowledge and awareness, improvements in referral quality and positive changes to the overall patient experience. Stakeholder feedback was actively sought and used to inform service development and drive continuous improvement.

The service had systems in place to promote continuity of care where patients did not attend scheduled appointments. Managers ensured patients who did not attend appointments (DNAs) were contacted by telephone and recorded on a tracking system. Patients who had not attended appointments were reviewed during daily morning safety huddles to ensure follow-up actions were completed and records remained accurate. Where concerns were identified, or further investigation was required, staff took additional action to understand the reasons for non-attendance and determine whether further support was needed.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service developed appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard and had arrangements in place to ensure people could access information in formats that met their individual communication needs. Staff ensured patients were provided with information about treatments, local services, patient rights and how to raise concerns or make a complaint. Information was available in formats appropriate to the needs of the patient population, including translated materials and accessible information resources.

Staff recognised the importance of involving carers and family members, where appropriate, and told us they regularly provided updates regarding patients' progress, ensuring relevant people remained informed and involved in care and treatment decisions.

The provider Spire Healthcare was registered with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), providing assurance that personal information was processed in accordance with data protection legislation. Annual assessments via the NHS Data Security and Protection Toolkit (DSPT) ensured Spire Harrogate Clinic was compliant with good information governance arrangements which included data protection.

There had been no diagnostic imaging-related incidents categorised as personal data breaches within the previous 12 months, indicating effective systems were in place to protect confidential patient information and support compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements.

Staff completed information governance and information management training as part of their mandatory training programme. The Registered Manager was the designated Caldicott Guardian and had responsibility for overseeing the confidentiality, security and appropriate use of patient information. Staff were aware of information governance requirements and understood their responsibilities in protecting personal data. There had been no data protection incidents reported in the diagnostic service.

Staff understood when information needed to be shared with external organisations and demonstrated awareness of processes for notifying external bodies were required to support patient care and meet regulatory obligations.

Patient feedback identified areas to improve, for example, patients undergoing interventional radiology procedures required additional information to support their understanding of the procedure and aftercare requirements. In response, the service developed and distributed preparation and aftercare information leaflets via email when appointments were confirmed. Patients were also provided with printed copies following their procedure to reinforce key information and support their ongoing care.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service actively sought, listened to and acted on feedback from patients to improve the quality and experience of care. During the previous 12 months, the diagnostic imaging service had not received any complaints. However, leaders demonstrated that patient feedback was reviewed and used to make service improvements where opportunities were identified. For example, patient feedback highlighted that it would be helpful to receive information to take home following treatment. In response, the service developed 5 information leaflets, which included the platelet-rich plasma (PRP) information leaflet for patients receiving treatment for tendon conditions.  These leaflets were provided to patients before they left the clinic, ensuring they had access to information about their treatment and aftercare.

Staff told us that concerns, complaints and incidents were responded to promptly and that learning was shared where appropriate. Although no diagnostic imaging-related clinical concerns had been reported, established processes ensured patient feedback remained a standing agenda item within governance arrangements.

Patient feedback was reviewed through quarterly patient experience meetings. Actions arising from feedback were recorded and monitored through the clinic's Audit Management and Tracking (AMaT) system. Actions were allocated to relevant staff members to ensure improvements were implemented and monitored. At the time of the assessment, no outstanding actions had been identified for the diagnostic imaging service.

Patients were provided with a range of opportunities to share their views and experiences. Information explaining how to raise concerns, make complaints or provide feedback was displayed throughout the clinic. Patients could provide feedback through questionnaires, online forms accessed via the clinic website and other patient survey mechanisms.

The most recent imaging survey received responses from 69 patients. Results demonstrated consistently positive experiences, with 93% of respondents rating their experience as very good and 7% rating their experience as good.

Leaders told us that by July 2026 survey performance had improved further, with most responses being rated as very good. This was supported by positive patient comments regarding staff support, communication and overall experience.

Staff understood how to respond appropriately when concerns or complaints were raised. Reception staff had completed training in managing difficult conversations and conflict resolution. Staff told us conflict management training formed part of core competency requirements, and additional complaints handling and conflict management training opportunities were also available.

The service collected and reviewed feedback from patients, consultants and colleagues to gain a broader understanding of service performance. Combined patient experience scores were reported at 98%, representing a 6% improvement from Quarter 1. Diagnostic imaging performance ranked second across the Spire Healthcare Group, demonstrating consistently positive feedback and high levels of patient satisfaction.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service had arrangements in place to support equitable access to diagnostic services and to meet the needs of the local population. The diagnostic department operated Monday to Friday, with flexibility to extend or adjust appointment times based on individual patient needs and consultant availability. The diagnostic operational policy included guidance on referral processes, referral quality, patient access, documentation requirements and pregnancy screening, helping to ensure patients were able to access services safely and consistently.

The service provided a range of diagnostic investigations, including X-ray, ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and interventional pain management procedures. Additional appointments were available outside of the standard working week, with X-ray and gynaecology ultrasound services available on Saturdays, helping to improve access and provide greater choice for patients.

Diagnostic activity ranged from approximately 4 to 13 patients per day. The service monitored demand and capacity across imaging modalities to ensure resources were deployed appropriately. Between February and July 2026, more than 1,200 outpatient diagnostic examinations were completed. MRI and interventional procedures represented the highest activity levels, with referrals received from internal consultants, internal GPs, external GPs and other healthcare professionals. This demonstrated that the service was accessible to patients from a range of referral pathways.

Appointment waiting times were monitored across all imaging modalities. Data from 1 February to 31 July 2026 showed the service was able to offer same-day availability for MRI and X-ray appointments on some occasions, alongside a range of appointment options for consultant-led ultrasound and interventional services. Waiting times remained relatively stable throughout the six-month period. MRI and interventional procedure waits varied between three and 11 days, with MRI waiting times generally shorter than those for interventional procedures.

The service monitored attendance and cancellation rates to understand potential barriers to access. Between February and July 2026, attendance rates were high across all diagnostic modalities. Did not attend (DNA) rates remained low at 0.47%, while cancellations ranged between 2.26% and 5.56%. No DNAs were recorded for X-ray, ultrasound or interventional procedures, indicating effective appointment management and good patient engagement with the service.

Activity data from August 2025 to July 2026 demonstrated the service provided 1,524 MRI scans, 247 X-rays, 138 ultrasound examinations and 244 interventional procedures.

Leaders used this information to monitor service demand, inform workforce planning and support future capacity management.

The service had established performance standards for reporting diagnostic results. A key performance indicator of 4 days was in place for reporting imaging investigations. Reporting turnaround times between February and July 2026 demonstrated that MRI and X-ray reports were generally completed within two days, while ultrasound and interventional reports were typically completed within one day. There was no evidence of significant delays, indicating patients and referring clinicians received diagnostic information promptly to support timely decision-making and continuity of care.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to support equitable access for people with additional needs. For example, patients with mobility difficulties were provided with mobility aids and wheelchairs where required. Staff considered individual circumstances and adapted support to remove barriers to accessing care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service promoted a culture that encouraged people to share their views, experiences and preferences. Staff recognised the importance of understanding individual circumstances and adapting care to ensure people received equitable support and positive outcomes, regardless of their background or personal characteristics.

Care was tailored to meet individual needs and preferences. Staff used a range of person-centred approaches to reduce barriers to care and improve patient experiences. These included the use of hospital passports, autism passports, dementia resources and tailored communication methods to support understanding and engagement. Staff also provided quieter environments and adjusted appointment arrangements were required to reduce anxiety and distress. Patients, carers and family members were actively involved in care planning and decision-making to help ensure care reflected individual preferences and needs.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of the factors that may contribute to health inequalities and poorer experiences for some groups of people. Training records showed high compliance with mandatory training in Equality, Diversity and Human Rights, Health Inequalities and Mental Health Awareness. This training supported staff to recognise and respond to individual needs, challenge discrimination and provide inclusive care to people from diverse backgrounds.

The provider completed equality impact assessments of policies and procedures to identify and address any unintended consequences for vulnerable people or those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. These assessments helped ensure policies, procedures and service developments promoted equality and did not disadvantage groups of people.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service supported people to make informed decisions about their care, treatment and future healthcare needs. Staff provided patients with information throughout their diagnostic pathway and ensured they understood the purpose of investigations, potential outcomes and any required follow-up arrangements.

As described in the Treating People as Individuals quality statement, staff recognised and responded to patients' personal, cultural, spiritual and emotional needs. Patients, carers and relatives could access support, including quiet spaces for reflection and discussion when required. These arrangements helped ensure people felt supported when making decisions about their care.

Although the diagnostic service did not provide end of life care, staff understood their role in supporting ongoing care pathways. Systems were in place to ensure significant or unexpected findings identified during diagnostic investigations were communicated promptly to the appropriate clinician. Staff told us urgent findings from scans and imaging examinations were escalated without delay to ensure patients received timely follow-up, further assessment or treatment where necessary.

The service worked closely with referring clinicians and healthcare professionals to ensure relevant information was shared effectively. This supported continuity of care and enabled patients to make informed decisions about any future treatment, investigations or interventions arising from diagnostic findings.