The New Victoria 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

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 as a stand alone assessment service group. 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.

Staff communicated with patients so that they understood their care, treatment. There were translation services available and audio hearing loop to support communication needs.

The service made reasonable adjustments where necessary such as extending the length of appointments for patients and taking time to explain procedures. Staff were focused on delivering patient centred care and respected the individual needs of each person. Patients were treated as individuals with treatment and care being offered in a flexible way and tailored to meet their needs.

Most staff we spoke with were able to explain the additional support available for patients with learning disabilities and autistic people. Mandatory training compliance within the imaging department was 100% for Autism and Learning Disabilities Awareness, and 90% for dementia awareness.

The department provided some services for children and young people; however, the environment was not child‑friendly. There were no toys, books or dedicated child‑focused resources in waiting areas. Staff told us they used toys and distraction techniques to support children during imaging procedures; however, these were not stored within the imaging department and were not immediately accessible. They also said they aimed to minimise waiting times for children and young people and, where possible, took them and their families directly through to the imaging room. We did not observe children undergoing imaging as a part of our inspection due to how services were organised.

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.

Patients received timely joined-up care across pathways. Staff told us they could book urgent appointments when required. Referrals included imaging urgency, and PSA staff used this information to arrange appropriate appointment times. One patient we spoke with told us they had been able to attend an appointment within 24 hours.

Reports were completed promptly and made available to the referring clinician, supporting timely clinical decision‑making and onward care. Reporting turnaround times were audited every 6 months. In November 2025, 97% of reports met the key performance indicator (KPI) for completion within 48 hours and 93% exceeded their target and were completed within 24 hours. Where urgent results were needed, reporting could be expedited, including through fast tracking and on‑call arrangements. Reports that fell outside the KPI were reviewed to identify causes and any required actions. Patients attending at weekends were advised of any impact on reporting times.

Patients said they received a copy of the letter that went to their GP. Staff said it was easy for patients and referrers to raise concerns about delays, and feedback and audit learning were used to support targeted improvements to capacity, cover and allocation. Management told us that, in response to increased demand, the MRI suite had extended its operating hours. This included longer operating opening hours from Monday to Saturday and opening on Sundays when the rest of the imaging department was closed. A mobile MRI van was also brought onsite to increase capacity and reduce patient waiting times. In the 12 months prior to the inspection, the number of MRIs performed in the department fluctuated, with an overall increase compared with the start of the period.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients received clear and timely information about their care and treatment. Patients knew how they would receive the results of their imaging. They were informed in advance about preparation requirements, including fasting instructions, the use of contrast and the availability of chaperones. Translation and communication needs were identified during the booking process so appropriate arrangements could be made. An audio induction loop was available to support patients with hearing loss.

CT radiographers met patients in advance to hand over preparation information and go through the information leaflet with them. Patients were informed of the costs of any diagnostic or screening procedures, whether they were self‑pay or using medical insurance. We saw reception staff checking that patients understood payment methods on arrival, signed consent forms relating to payment were in patient records.

Patient areas displayed information about parking, the complaints process, fire evacuation procedures and self‑payment. The department was easy to navigate, with clear and accessible signage.

Cardiac rooms had a range of information leaflets available on cardiac health. Patients were also given post‑contrast information leaflets, including advice on what to do if they experienced a delayed allergic reaction. Patients said they generally felt well informed about their appointments. We also observed staff keeping patients updated about delays and waiting times.

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

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

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Staff said they used active listening and de-escalation skills when patients raised concerns, and they offered apologies and explanations when things went wrong.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. We saw complaint outcome letters that explained the outcome of investigations clearly, included apologies where appropriate and provided information on the outcome of their complaint and advised how to escalate concerns if they remained dissatisfied.

In the 12 months prior to the inspection, the imaging department received 4 complaints, two of which were regarding charges for services. Complaints and patient experience comments were reviewed by the senior leadership team as a part of the monthly Integrated Governance Committee, to identify learning and improve services. For example, staff were reminded to fully inform patients of billing processes before undergoing imaging.

Complaints were managed in accordance with the hospital’s policy. The hospital was registered with the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) and subscribed to the ISCAS Code of Practice for one year ending 31 March 2027. Complaint acknowledgement and response times were monitored by the IGC. 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.

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.

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

Staff encouraged patients to use the on-site parking facilities. We saw that managers had shared information with staff reminding them to support patients in registering their vehicles to ensure they did not incur parking fines while attending appointments.

Patients told us they were able to access appointments at times that suited them and did not experience difficulties travelling to the hospital or using the onsite parking.

There was no reporting backlog in the imaging service. Staff told us that imaging reports were routinely completed and sent to referrers promptly, with most reports issued within 24 hours of the procedure. This supported timely clinical decision‑making and continuity of care.

While the hospital was implementing a new IT system, it had plans in place to support equitable access and avoid digital exclusion. Patients could still make appointments and speak to staff in person when they arrived at the hospital.

Managers said non‑attendance rates were low. Appointments and procedures were pre‑booked, confirmed in advance and coordinated closely with patients. In most cases, insurer pre‑authorisation or payment was obtained beforehand. This meant patients who were unable to attend usually gave advance notice, allowing appointments to be rearranged.

Access information was inclusive and easy to find. The hospital website provided clear directions, transport information and contact details to support patients attending appointments. Staff reviewed patient feedback to identify and address any barriers to access.

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.

Staff were aware of discrimination and inequality and described how they adapted care to meet patients’ individual needs. Staff made sure patients felt listened to, respected and treated fairly.

Policies and governance arrangements reflected a commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. The Equality and Diversity Policy set out the hospital’s aim to attract and retain a workforce representative of the communities it served and to ensure staff felt valued and supported. Policies supported fair treatment and helped staff recognise and respond to patients’ diverse needs. Leaders spoke positively about the diversity of the workforce and described an inclusive culture within the hospital.

Mandatory training compliance within the imaging department was 100% for Equality, Diversity and Human Rights.

Staff across the service and wider organisation promoted a culture where patients felt able to share their views. The 2024 staff satisfaction survey identified a need to improve awareness of the Freedom to Speak Up role and its purpose. In response, the hospital introduced mandatory Speak Up, Listen Up, Follow Up e‑learning modules. At the time of inspection, a further staff survey had not yet been completed, as management wanted to allow time for changes to embed following the hospitals acquisition.

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.

Patients received clear and accessible information to help them prepare for their care and treatment. Prior to appointments, information was provided about what to expect, including scan procedures, timescales for receiving results and contact details for further support. Patients said staff took time to answer questions and offer reassurance.

Staff said they showed empathy and sensitivity when supporting patients with complex or life‑limiting conditions. Staff said that when patients became unwell during scanning, they responded with compassion and worked collaboratively with other services to ensure patients received the care they needed. This was corroborated by records we reviewed during incident investigations.

By providing timely and accurate imaging results and working closely with referrers, staff supported clinical teams to make informed decisions about ongoing treatment and palliative care in a timely and compassionate way.