The New Victoria Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected. We looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. We also looked for evidence that staff wellbeing was valued, and that staff were supported and enabled to deliver consistently person centred care.

This is the first assessment for this service as a stand alone assessment service group. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and took account of their individual needs. Staff introduced themselves to patients, explained their role and the process for the imaging. Patients told us staff were kind, respectful and responsive to their needs.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. They took their time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. Patients told us they had time to ask questions before their imaging and said staff kept them informed about the process. We observed staff were discrete and upheld patients’ privacy and dignity when carrying out procedures.

Staff in the scanning room responded to patient’s anxieties about their procedure and took steps to reduce the stress within the environment. Patients told us depending on the imaging modality they were able to have somebody familiar with them if they wanted. Patient feedback received by the hospital showed that the imaging team were praised for being kind and patient with patients.

Staff maintained patient confidentiality. When staff were discussing confidential information, this was done in private. Staff told us they had introduced a quality improvement project to ensure patients privacy was maintained at the reception desk, so patients were not asked for personal information in public areas.

The service used patient questionnaires to gather feedback. When asked about their experience at reception 88% of patients said it was good or excellent. When asked about their overall experience with the radiographer 98% of patients said it was good or excellent. Patients commented that staff were “were so calming, reassuring and patient” and “lovely and super helpful”. We saw a patient survey results audit completed in July 2024. This audit included a review of areas patients said negatively impacted their experience and an action plan to make improvements. The next patient survey results audit was scheduled for February 2025 however we were not informed if this occurred.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet patients’ individual needs. Staff told us that for patients who found the bright hospital lighting difficult, they offered the option to wait in their car. Reception staff would then contact them and take them directly to the imaging room when their appointment was ready. Staff could also adjust lighting and room temperature in the imaging rooms to support patients with sensory needs.

While the mammography suite was undergoing renovation, clinics were delivered using a mobile unit. Staff told us that where clinically appropriate, appointments were rearranged for patients who preferred not to be seen in the mobile unit.

Staff understood and respected patients personal, cultural, social and religious needs and how these related to their care. Staff said they had made a private room available to patients who required space for prayer. Staff recognised that cultural values and religious beliefs could make intimate examinations and procedures distressing. Staff said they ensured patients were fully informed about the procedure and felt comfortable before carrying out imaging.

The hospital did not have an in‑house interpreting service; interpreting support was provided through an external interpreting service. Staff told us they had access to interpreter services when required. The need for an interpreter was identified during the appointment booking process so that support could be arranged in advance. Staff also said that patients who felt more comfortable making appointment arrangements in writing could do so by email instead of using the telephone. Staff also told us that family members could support patients with communication where they were already present, and this was appropriate. There were no patient information leaflets available in the imaging waiting area; however, staff told us they could access patient information online in multiple languages to share with patients as needed.

Information about patients’ rights and how to provide feedback or make a complaint was available within the department. In the 12 months prior to the inspection, the imaging department received 4 complaints. We saw complaints were investigated thoroughly. Patients received a timely response, and complaints were handled in an open and transparent way.

Water coolers were available in imaging waiting areas. Patients told us they knew how to access food and drink if needed while at the hospital. We saw a person and their family was given tea and biscuits while waiting, and staff offered water to people in the waiting area.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff made sure patients, and their families, understood their care and treatment. Staff communicated with patients in a way they could understand and provided reassurance. Imaging procedures were discussed with patients, and they were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care. Patients were informed of the benefits and risks associated with their imaging so they could make informed choices. Consent was documented in patient records. Patients told us they were given enough information about their imaging before their appointments.

Staff told us that if patients requested imaging to be carried out by a radiographer of the same gender, this would be accommodated as part of the booking process. All gynaecological imaging was carried out by female staff.

Patients were able to have support from friends or family when using the service. We saw patients attend appointments with relatives or friends, and patients told us they could have a family member present during the imaging if they wished.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff treated patients with respect and responded to changes in risk. Staff recognised when patients needed additional support and acted promptly. For example, they allowed extra time for explanations and adapted their communication to help patients understand the imaging process. Staff told us they supported patients who were upset about the outcome of their imaging and could take them to a quieter area of the waiting room. We saw patients and their relatives using this space.

Staff monitored patients throughout their scan to ensure their comfort. They demonstrated empathy and recognised the potential stress associated with imaging procedures. Information on domestic abuse support, including helpline contacts, was displayed in patient bathrooms. Patients had access to call bells in changing areas. Patients told us they felt supported, and we saw staff taking steps to maintain patients’ comfort.

Patients were offered a choice of appointment times to meet their needs. We observed reception staff taking time to work with patients to arrange appointments at convenient times. One person told us they were able to book their scan within 24 hours of making contact.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff were supported and felt positive and proud of their work. Staff at all levels told us they enjoyed their roles and many said the team felt like a ‘family’. Feedback about managers and service leads was consistently positive, with staff describing cooperative and supportive working relationships. Results from the November 2025 pulse staff survey showed responses to the question ‘How happy are you working at NVH part of Bupa’ was 76/100, above the benchmark of 72/100. Staff sickness and absence rates for the imaging department were consistent with the average for the hospital.

Staff had regular one‑to‑one meetings with their managers and received annual appraisals. This was supported by appraisal data for the imaging department, which showed a 97% completion rate. Most staff said they had access to ongoing development and were encouraged to take up learning opportunities.

Wellbeing initiatives included a free flu vaccination, financial wellbeing seminars, and medical and dental insurance. Staff could also access the Employee Assistance Programme, which provided a 24-hour confidential helpline. Wellbeing and social events were organised for staff, including a breast cancer awareness day, a Christmas party, an Easter activity and a quiz night.

Staff were recognised for their contributions. The imaging department had a ‘care and kindness’ book where compliments and positive feedback from patients, colleagues and managers were shared and celebrated. Staff birthdays were acknowledged, and we saw a birthday list displayed in the imaging staff room. Each month, two staff members were recognised as Value Champions and featured in the hospital’s monthly staff bulletin, with winners receiving a voucher. Staff also received one-off thank-you vouchers at Christmas.

Staff were able to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest improvements. The hospital had a Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU) Guardian in post who had completed the national Guardian training. Completion of Freedom to Speak Up – Core Training for all Workers was 100% within the imaging department. We saw posters displayed throughout the department informing staff about the FTSU process. Staff knew who the FTSU Guardian was and said they would feel comfortable raising concerns through this route; however, there had been very few concerns raised to the Guardian. Staff also told us that members of the executive leadership team were approachable and that they would often raise concerns with them directly.