Wigan PET Centre

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 had the skills, experience, and commitment needed to meet patients' needs. Patients were consistently positive about their experience of the service and praised the kindness, compassion, and support they received from staff. Staff had access to good support and worked in an environment that promoted their health and wellbeing.

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 kindness and compassion. They respected patients' privacy and dignity and considered their individual needs throughout their care. Staff introduced themselves and explained their role. They spent time with patients and anyone accompanying them and spoke to them in a respectful and considerate way.

Staff followed the provider's privacy, dignity, and respect policy. The policy was up to date, but some of the documents it referred to were out of date. These included older references to the NHS Constitution and guidance published by the Healthcare Commission, which was the organisation that existed before the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Staff in the scanning room recognised when patients felt anxious and took steps to help them feel more comfortable. They had experience supporting patients who were worried about their procedure and were able to explain how they adapted their approach to meet individual needs. Patients spoke positively about the service, and we reviewed recent feedback that highlighted the kindness and compassion shown by staff. Patients also described how staff helped make the procedure a positive experience.

The location did not have dedicated changing facilities. However, staff took appropriate steps to protect patients' privacy and dignity when they needed to undress for the procedure. For example, window blinds were closed and cameras were switched off.

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 provided patients with help, emotional support, and advice when they needed it. Patients told us that staff were helpful, supportive, and easy to talk to.

Referral information and the PET-CT safety and consent form both included sections where staff could record details about a patient's individual needs and preferences. Staff also knew in advance which patients would be arriving by hospital transport and planned appointments accordingly. This helped make sure return transport could be arranged at a suitable time. Patients who needed hospital transport were not booked into certain appointment slots to reduce the risk of them waiting after the service had closed because of delays with collection.

Interpreters were usually arranged by the referring specialist NHS trust as part of the booking process. However, staff could also access a telephone interpreting service if language support was needed at short notice.

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 had a good understanding of the additional needs that patients might have when attending the service. They were able to give examples of how they adapted their approach to meet individual needs and provide appropriate support.

The service followed the provider's chaperone policy. Patients could request a chaperone if they wished. However, after the radiotracer had been given, chaperones could not stay close to patients because of radiation safety requirements. To help keep people safe, all visitors (including chaperones, family members, and friends) were provided with radiation monitoring dosimeters if they needed to remain close to the patient.

Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment. All patients we spoke with told us that staff explained procedures clearly, gave them opportunities to ask questions, and did not proceed without their consent.

Staff could reassure patients throughout the scan when needed. For example, they told patients how long they had been in the scanner and how much time remained. Patients also had access to a call button that they could use at any time to request help. Staff were able to stop the scan immediately if required.

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.

The service had systems in place to support patients who needed additional care or specialist intervention. For example, staff described a recent case where a routine scan identified an unexpected finding that required urgent attention. Staff contacted the patient's care team and, following clinical advice, arranged prompt support through the nearby emergency department.

During the inspection, we observed a patient who was unable to sit comfortably in an armchair because of their condition. Staff responded quickly and helped the patient move onto a trolley, which was more suitable and comfortable. The patient appreciated this support. The service also had equipment to help position patients safely and comfortably, including positioning blocks and a range of pillows for use before and during scans.

Staff were usually always present in the clinical areas, which meant patients remained under observation while attending the service. Each patient cubicle also had a call bell that was explained to patients and placed within easy reach. During our inspection, no patients needed to use the call bells because staff were attentive and responded promptly to patients' needs.

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 had access to the equipment, resources, and facilities they needed to work safely. Although the service was busy, staff were supported to take breaks during the day. Clinical staff were classified workers under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 and attended annual health assessments to confirm they remained fit to work while carrying out duties involving radiation exposure.

Staff had access to a range of wellbeing services and employee benefits. These included a confidential helpline for emotional and practical support, access to medical second opinions, and physiotherapy services. Leaders also showed how they had supported staff who had moved from overseas to join the service. This included providing additional support, such as driving lessons, to help them settle into their new role and local area.

Staff spoke positively about their experience of working at the service and the support they received from colleagues and leaders. Staff sickness levels were in line with expected rates, and staff turnover had been very low over the previous 3 years. Staff were able to discuss their career goals and professional development during regular reviews. Leaders also told us they were available to discuss these matters at any time.

The provider carried out a staff survey as part of its routine processes. The results were generally positive. However, because the service had a small number of staff, it was difficult to draw firm conclusions from the responses. This is discussed further in the ‘Freedom to speak up’ section of this report.