Nuffield Health Manchester Diagnostic Suite

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We saw that staff were encouraged and motivated to go above and beyond for patients. The service was able to be flexible in its provision of care, and staff and leaders we spoke with could all give contemporary examples of how they take such measures.

We were also told by all staff and service leaders we spoke with about the pride and value they take in their work and that the service works hard to support their wellbeing and development.

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 4. The evidence showed an exceptional 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.

During the inspection we consistently observed interactions between staff and patients that were caring, supportive and compassionate. When we spoke with patients, they highlighted the diligent attitude and warmth of staff. One person had arrived very early for their appointment and they told us that despite this, efforts had been made for them to be seen as soon as possible for their convenience and said that they had been offered a warm drink while they waited. Both NHS and privately funded patients felt that the service offered was a premium one, and one NHS patient told us that they were “made to feel like a VIP” throughout their care journey.

The service had an effective policy on maintaining the privacy and dignity of its patients, and staff were aware of this. The environment was designed to protect patients’ dignity during procedures, with spacious and secure changing areas alongside dedicated spaces where patients in gowns could wait in comfort and privacy. We observed that staff were discreet and respectful, and the service demonstrated learning from feedback and invested time in coaching new staff to ensure they met the highest professional standards in their communication.

Patients we spoke with said they felt very safe and respected throughout their visit. They told us they did not feel rushed to proceed with a scan and that staff took the time to describe the procedure in full to avoid any surprises. The data from the previous 3 months showed that 95.2% of respondents were “very satisfied” with the service, and 0% were “dissatisfied” or worse. During our inspection we saw one member of the service team attend the adjacent NHS trust to engage with them directly so that the appropriate transport arrangements could be arranged for a patient after their scan in a timely way.

The service had effective information governance procedures to ensure that patient data and images were secure and confidential, and this was supported by a biannual information governance audit, which showed consistently good compliance. The service had a local and national Caldicott Guardian whose details were on display in staff areas. The service also had additional processes in place to further safeguard people’s identities if this was required.

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 we spoke with had a good understanding of what additional needs a patient might have on attending the service and were able to give examples of various ways they adapted their practice to meet these needs, such as by scheduling additional time for appointments, allowing patients to visit the clinic before their appointment, or have a supportive person join them during the process before the scan.

The service recognised that MRI scanning typically makes patients more anxious than other imaging modalities due to the noise and duration of the procedure. To help counter this and to help accommodate the needs of people with sensory needs, eye masks were offered for comfort, and staff could modify the scan so that patients didn’t need to enter the scanner headfirst, which was also a wider version to help mitigate feelings of claustrophobia. Clinic rooms also used ‘ambient experience’ technology, which enabled patients to select for themselves a virtual projected environment and lighting system to give them more comfort during the scan, and could bring along their own music to listen to during the procedure. Patients could see the scanning room and ambient system online in advance of attending their appointment, or an in person tour could be arranged on request.

We heard multiple examples of the service and staff making significant efforts to meet patients’ individual needs. For example, we heard that the service arranged and staffed an urgent out-of-hours clinic so that a professional sportsperson could be scanned to rule out any serious conditions and ensure they were fit to play an upcoming match. Staff gave another example of the service adopting a banking protocol and secure cash-handling process at short notice, to ensure that a patient who was only able to pay in cash could still access the service.

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 understood their care and treatment. We observed staff take a caring approach and ensured they spoke to people in ways that they could understand and were reassuring. The scanning process was discussed fully before the procedure, and patients were encouraged to be part of the decision-making process. Staff ensured that information was shared, and patients were informed of the benefits and risks associated with their care, so that they could make informed choices.

The service recognised that patients may request a chaperone present during appointments. A clear procedure for chaperones of either sex to accompany patients was available to meet their needs. Appointment letters let people know in advance that chaperones were available and signs detailing this were present in x-ray and changing rooms. The staff member acting as chaperone was recorded in the patient notes, and when we spoke with staff, they understood the responsibilities required. A key clinical responsibility of radiology assistants in the service was to act as a chaperone and patient advocate. The service’s flowchart stated that only staff who had completed and can evidence training can act as chaperone.

Patients felt they were given enough time during the appointment for the procedure to be explained, and that they felt listened to, respected, and had their own views considered. Staff told us they felt they had sufficient time to speak with patients and answer any questions.

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 and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Alarms were in working order in key areas such as changing rooms and toilets, and emergency stops were placed on the equipment and in control rooms in case of urgent need. During scanning, staff were able to maintain a good view of the patient throughout the procedure.

Staff understood how to manage patient risks during a clinical deterioration or emergency, particularly during cardiac CT or MRI scanning. The service scheduled an appropriate cardiologist to always be present during such scans, who was experienced in identifying risk and managing any associated emergencies. The patient’s heart rate was measured before and during cardiac scans, and the cardiologist could prescribe medication to optimise this to ensure the best outcome. Patients were closely involved in this process, and we saw instructions which could be provided in multiple languages in such instances.

All staff, including assistants and administrative staff, had completed appropriate life support and resuscitation training. Emergency scenarios were rehearsed routinely, and staff could describe their roles in managing a patient during an emergency, which were detailed each day during the staff huddle. The service was also negotiating access to the adjacent NHS trust’s emergency response team to provide a faster response than the current system of calling 999.

Patients told us they were supported with their emotional needs. They told us staff were calm and reassuring and answered any questions they had about the procedure. People spoke positively about the way staff listened to them and provided them with support and reassurance when they felt nervous or anxious about undertaking their scan procedure. We observed staff speaking with people in a calm and reassuring manner and saw staff supported people to help them relax before commencing their scan.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

All staff we spoke with were extremely positive about the support they had in their work and wellbeing from their managers and colleagues, and many staff considered this to be a highlight of working at the service. Several staff described the team as “like a family” and had worked at the service for many years. One staff member told us they “could not envisage working anywhere else” for this reason. Staff told us the managers and senior staff were visible and always accessible if problems occurred, despite them working across two locations. This was further supported by the most recent staff survey conducted in June 2025, which showed that peer relationships and management support questions scored particularly highly; above 9 out of 10.

To ensure that staff had a voice and were involved in decision making, employee forums were held every 3 months. An objective of the service was also to ‘strengthen voice and inclusion’ of staff by introducing a “You said, we did” section to staff communications and rotate staff to attend appropriate heads of department meetings. Leaders told us that they were always receptive to suggestions and possible improvements, and other staff we spoke with confirmed that they felt involved with decision making.

Staff appraisal compliance was excellent and above target. We were told that the initial question at appraisals is always “how are you?”, to consider each appraisee’s wellbeing. We saw that personal and professional development was encouraged at appraisal, and staff were given meaningful objectives that managers could support with. The service also ensured the good physical wellbeing of staff in accordance with radiation protection guidelines and the additional potential risks for pregnant staff working in an imaging service had also been considered, with a dedicated risk assessment process for such situations that worked alongside the provider’s broader occupational health department. Data showed 96% of staff had completed health, safety and welfare core training, and the provider offered a wellbeing champion scheme to help promote and support staff initiatives in this area. Sickness absence rates for the service were on average less than 2% in the previous 12 months, which was better than most of the other provider’s locations and well below the regional NHS staff sickness rates. The service also showed us data that demonstrated that staff were not regularly working beyond their contracted hours and that there was not a high turnover in staff.

We saw the provider offered a broad range of health and wellbeing benefits, such as free gym memberships and routine health assessments, and made provision for wellness and volunteering days for all staff. Benefits such as salary sacrifice schemes, shopping and childcare discounts, and long service awards were also available for all staff. A recognition scheme could also be used to highlight when staff had demonstrated the provider’s values, and we also saw a “Shout Out” scheme where staff in the service could give thanks and recognition to their colleagues, which was in use and on display in a staff area.