InHealth MRI - Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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.

People, and where appropriate their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care. Staff shared information about the scans in a way which people could understand, however, the service could do more to ensure people had information in advance of their scans where appropriate. People were invited to give feedback and knew how to raise concerns. The environment met the needs of those with conditions that could create a barrier to access. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through staff training and close monitoring of feedback. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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.

The provider 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 their needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. For example, the service allowed extra time for appointments where this was needed to ensure a successful scan. We observed staff regularly checking in with patients during their scans and giving them assurance and appropriate information throughout.

Staff, patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. The service had access to face-to-face interpreting services, or where this was not available due to short notice, telephone interpreters could be used. Parents, carers and other support people were involved in the scanning process, to support communication and aid cooperation.

The provider 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 provided care in ways which met the needs of local people and the communities served. They worked with system partners and local organisations to plan care where relevant. For example, the service worked with the trust paediatric team and consultant radiologists to reserve a weekly appointment for paediatric patients requiring mild sedation for their scans.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. For example, the service worked with cardiac physiologists to support scanning for patients with cardiac pacemakers.

The trust spoke positively about the relationship with the provider, stating they were a key part of the diagnostic pathway, helping to ensure processes and procedures were integrated and care for patients was joined up.

The service was open for appointments 7 days a week. Normal opening hours were between 8am – 8pm, with an on-call service operating between 8pm-12am.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply information to patient's and their families or carers.

The service often carried out urgent scans for patients who were very unwell.

Staff had access to patient information resources. However, we did not observe staff offering these to patients on the day of the assessment. Some patients, and their families or carers, could have benefited from information leaflets explaining what to expect during the scan and how to prepare for it.

A small number of patients attended scan appointments after discharge and could also have benefited from receiving this information before their scan.

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

Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about the scanning process.

Leaders told us patients knew how to give immediate feedback about their experiences of care; however, the service had struggled to gather feedback once scans were completed. They were working with the trust to consider solutions and were in the process of implementing a text feedback service. We also saw a poster with a QR code giving information about how to provide feedback or complain.

Only 1 complaint had been received by the service in the last 12 months, and we saw evidence that this was shared in staff briefings with learning and actions identified. We were told that any complaints were dealt with locally in the first instance. If the complaint was unresolved, patients could complain through the trust’s complaints process and then to the parliamentary ombudsman if they were still not satisfied.

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

In the 6 months prior to our visit, the service offered 2983 scanning appointments. A total of 7 (0.23%) patients did not attend their appointments during this period.

The staff managed the department occupancy and patient flow well. Managers monitored waiting times. People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Except for a weekly paediatric clinic, the service did not provide routine outpatient appointments; patients attended from inpatient wards, the emergency department, or shortly after discharge from either setting.

We saw positive feedback from the trust that demonstrated how staff had supported an autistic patient to access the service, creating a calming environment and reducing the patient’s anxiety about the procedure.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning and delivery.

The service had an up-to-date Patient and Service User Accessibility Policy, which set out the process for offering, recording and implementing reasonable adjustments to anyone with protected characteristics.

All staff had completed mandatory training in equality, diversity and human rights. Staff were able to describe the processes for embedding equity including how they ensured they did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

The nature of the diagnostic procedures provided by the service meant it was difficult to isolate specific outcomes for people with protected characteristics. However, we looked at data around incidents, feedback from people who used the service and complaints, and this did not identify any disparity in care experiences, adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.