Wigan PET Centre

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 the service 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.

Services were planned and delivered to meet people's individual needs in a timely way. People could access the service when they needed it and receive information in a suitable format.

However, staff had not completed the full range of learning disability and autism training required by national guidance. The service also did not collect enough patient feedback to be assured that it could identify and respond to any inequalities in people's experience of care.

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 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. While the service worked to make sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, staff and leaders had not undertaken the full complement of training in learning disabilities and autism in line with national guidelines.

Staff were able to describe how they adapted care for patients living with a learning disability or dementia. All staff had completed training in both dementia and learning disability awareness. However, the training did not include the live, interactive training co-produced and co-delivered by people with a learning disability and autistic people that is required under the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice (June 2025). We discussed this with service leaders, who told us the provider had not required or communicated this training.

The location and clinical areas were accessible to wheelchair users. The reception area had a hearing loop to support people who used hearing aids. The service also had an accessibility box containing items such as reading glasses, easy-grip pens, and communication aids for patients who needed them.

Systems were in place to make sure patients, families, and carers could access interpreters or sign language support when needed. This was usually arranged by the booking team at the specialist NHS trust, but staff could also access telephone interpretation services during a patient's visit if required.

The service considered patients' individual needs when arranging appointments. For patients attending from hospital wards or travelling by ambulance, scan times were planned around their wider care and treatment needs. This included considering medicines, ongoing treatment, and dietary requirements, such as fasting arrangements for patients with diabetes.

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.

The service planned and delivered care to meet the needs of patients and the communities it served. Staff worked closely with the referring specialist NHS trust to plan and coordinate care. The service also had systems in place to support patients who needed additional help or specialist intervention, including inpatients attending from the referring trust with support staff and specialist equipment.

During the previous 6 months, the service experienced 3 periods of unexpected downtime because of scanner hardware or software problems. These issues were resolved quickly. Incident records showed that engineers could be contacted easily and were able to provide advice by telephone at short notice. When appointments needed to be rearranged, patients were rebooked promptly.

The service followed the provider's policy for managing missed appointments. The policy recognised the importance of ensuring scans took place at the right time. When a patient did not attend, staff contacted them as soon as possible and made 3 further attempts to arrange a new appointment. The referring specialist NHS trust's booking team was informed as soon as a non-attendance was identified. At the end of each day, the service also provided the booking team with details of appointment outcomes, including any missed appointments, so that appropriate follow-up action could be taken.

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.

The service provided accurate and relevant information in formats that could be adapted to meet individual needs.

We reviewed a range of patient leaflets that explained the scan procedure, how patient information was stored and used, and infection prevention and control measures. The leaflets provided clear and helpful information and included some document control details. However, they did not include review dates. This meant the service could not be fully assured that all leaflets contained the most up-to-date information.

The service worked closely with the referring specialist NHS trust to make sure appointment letters contained the information patients needed before their visit. Patients were also sent a leaflet explaining the scan procedure with their appointment letter.

Appointment letters included information about how patients could arrange an interpreter to attend with them. The service followed the provider's policy that family members and carers should not be used as interpreters.

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.

The service collected patient feedback on an ongoing basis. We reviewed the most recent monthly analysis of this feedback. The questionnaires asked patients about the appointment booking process, the cleanliness and security of the service, and the care and attitude of staff. However, only 4% of patients had completed a questionnaire in the month before our inspection. This was not enough feedback for the service to be confident that patient experiences were consistently positive. Leaders advised that more feedback that month had been collected in a paper format which was not included in the 4% figure, as the service was in the process of adopting a new digital system.

Information about how to give feedback or make a complaint was clearly displayed in the waiting area and on the provider's website.

Patients we spoke with knew how to share feedback about their care. The service had not received any complaints in the previous 12 months. There had also been no notifiable incidents during this period.

We reviewed how the service had responded to a complaint received in 2024. The complaint had been fully investigated, and the service had considered all stages of the patient's care and whether anything could have been done differently. A senior member of staff responded within the provider's target of 20 working days. The response was compassionate, addressed all aspects of the complaint, and explained how the person could escalate their concerns if they remained dissatisfied.

Leaders told us that learning from complaints was shared with staff through regular team meetings. Trends in patient feedback and complaints from across the provider's services were also reviewed at monthly quality meetings to identify opportunities for improvement.

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.

The service provided PET-CT scans 6 days a week and carried out almost 4,500 scans in the 12 months before the inspection. It was open from 7:30am to 8:30pm on weekdays and until 7:30pm on Saturdays. This gave patients flexibility when arranging appointments. Up to 19 appointment slots were available each day, although some patients needed more than one slot if their scan took longer. During the inspection, we saw that appointment lists were usually fully booked.

The service worked closely with the referring NHS trust to make sure patients who needed an urgent scan were seen as quickly as possible.

Patients were asked to arrive 90 minutes before their scan so the radiotracer had enough time to work properly. Staff told us that, on rare occasions, the radiotracer delivered to the service could not be used because of quality concerns or transport delays. The service had procedures in place to manage these situations and monitored radiotracer supplies throughout the day to help prevent disruption to patient care.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

As a diagnostic imaging service, the location did not measure treatment outcomes for patients. Instead, it used patient satisfaction surveys, which were reviewed both locally and across the provider. However, the service had not collected enough feedback in the months before the inspection to identify whether people from different groups were having different experiences of care.

In May 2026, the service had one of the lowest patient response rates across the provider. It received 14 survey responses, representing 4% of patients who used the service. This low response rate affected the reliability of the service's calculated performance (known the ‘net promoter score’, NPS) and meant there was not enough information to assess whether people with different protected characteristics experienced care differently. For example, survey data could be broken down by characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. However, the number of responses was so low that only one group in each category was represented in the results.

However, all staff had completed mandatory training in equality, diversity, and inclusion and were up to date with this training. Staff told us they felt confident supporting people from groups that may experience inequalities. We also found that the service considered equality during the development and review of its policies and procedures through the use of equality impact assessments.

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.

As a diagnostic imaging service, the location would not usually be involved in discussions about future care planning. Information about Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions was included in referral documents. Staff told us they were aware of this information and would take it into account if an emergency situation arose, although this had never been necessary.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care. Patients could involve their family members or carers in discussions if they wished. When needed, staff directed patients to their care team or other appropriate sources of advice and information.

At the end of their appointment, patients were given information about how and when they would receive their results, who would provide them, and any follow-up appointments that might be needed.