Wigan PET Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care, supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The service worked closely with the referring specialist NHS trust and was well integrated with the care it provided. Staff told us they had access to supportive and approachable leaders when they needed advice or assistance. They also understood the aims and vision of the service.

However, there was not enough evidence to show that staff were encouraged to raise concerns or that they felt confident and supported in doing so.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had a clear vision and a plan for achieving its goals. This reflected the wider aims and objectives of the provider. Staff we spoke with understood how their role contributed to the goals of both the service and the provider.

Staff focused on meeting the needs of patients as part of their day-to-day work. The service recognised and celebrated team and individual achievements, and we saw examples of this in team meeting records.

We reviewed the most recent staff survey results for both the service and the provider. The number of responses from service staff was small, but the results about culture and strategy were generally similar to, or better than, the provider's overall results. The survey showed that 83% of staff gave a positive response to questions about leadership and direction, compared with 81% across the provider. Provider-wide results had improved from 76% in 2024, showing a positive trend over time.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service was led by a clinical lead radiographer and a centre manager. The centre manager was also the registered manager and held the same role at another registered location in Greater Manchester. The clinical lead worked permanently at Wigan PET Centre, while the centre manager divided their time between the 2 locations they managed. Leaders were available to staff for support throughout the service's operating hours.

The registered manager was supported by a regional manager, who visited the service regularly. These visits gave the regional manager opportunities to speak with staff and understand any issues affecting the service. Staff knew who their leaders were and understood the management structure.

Leaders had the skills, experience, and knowledge needed to run the service. They understood the challenges facing the service and took action to address them. Leaders were visible and approachable for both staff and patients. Staff told us that leaders supported them to develop their skills and progress in their careers.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service could not always be assured that people felt they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff told us that the service was open and that leaders were visible and approachable. However, recent staff survey results suggested there may be barriers to staff raising concerns. The service also did not always receive enough patient feedback to fully understand patients' experiences. The provider had an up-to-date whistleblowing policy that clearly explained how staff could raise concerns and how these would be managed.

The most recent staff survey was based on a small number of responses. However, questions about speaking up and continuous improvement received the lowest scores. We found that 50% of staff who responded did not agree with the statement, "I feel safe to speak up about concerns relating to quality, safety, or how work is delivered." This was significantly higher than the provider-wide result, where 16% of staff did not agree with the same statement.

Leaders had developed an action plan in response to the staff survey. However, the plan did not include actions to address concerns about speaking up.

Concerns about low patient feedback response rates are discussed further in the ‘Equity in Experiences and Outcomes’ section of this report. We did see evidence that leaders had already discussed ways to improve patient feedback response rates at recent team meetings.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The service showed a commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion. Staff were treated fairly and with respect. Leaders promoted an inclusive culture where differences were valued, and they gave examples of how this supported staff working at the service.

The service followed the provider's flexible working policy and equal opportunities and diversity policy. However, the equal opportunities and diversity policy was 4 months overdue for review at the time of our inspection.

Recruitment, supervision, and appraisal processes were fair and based on staff skills and performance. The service had systems in place to make reasonable adjustments for staff who needed additional support. This included offering flexible working arrangements to support staff wellbeing. Most staff worked patterns and hours that suited their individual needs while continuing to meet the needs of the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

Staff at all levels understood their roles and responsibilities. They had job descriptions that explained what was expected of them, and there were systems to make sure professional registration and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks remained up to date. Staff with responsibility for supervising others or monitoring quality understood what was required of them.

Staff could access the information they needed in clear and easy-to-use formats. This helped them provide safe care and understand how the service was performing. Information systems were digital, secure, and worked well together. The provider had effective policies for information security and reporting data breaches. It had also achieved additional cyber security certifications to strengthen data protection. All staff were up to date with mandatory training in data protection and information governance.

The service used audits to monitor quality and make sure standards were maintained. A programme of monthly, quarterly, six-monthly, and annual audits covered a wide range of areas. When improvements were needed, leaders used digital systems to record, monitor, and track actions until they were completed.

The service followed provider-wide policies and procedures. Local procedures were also available where these were needed. Documents followed a consistent system for version control and review dates. However, some provider-level policies were out of date. We also found that a small number contained references to national guidance that had been withdrawn several years earlier.

The service had effective governance arrangements. Regular meetings took place both within the service and across the provider. A wide range of information was collected, monitored, and shared through clear reporting processes. Leaders reviewed performance data and compared results across the provider's locations. Where improvement was needed, action plans were developed and monitored. Meetings followed planned agendas, and records were shared appropriately with those who attended.

Risks were clearly identified and recorded on a risk register. This helped leaders monitor risks, put controls in place, and track actions to reduce them. The highest-rated risk related to radioactive contamination. The service managed this through staff training, competence assessments, ongoing radiation monitoring, and appropriate staffing levels. All risks had review dates and named staff responsible for managing them. The service also had comprehensive business continuity plans that covered a range of potential incidents, the actions required, and who would take responsibility in each situation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff and leaders worked closely with external organisations to improve care and treatment for patients. These organisations mainly included the referring specialist NHS trust and the NHS trust on which site the service was located.

As part of its agreement with the referring specialist NHS trust, the service took part in regular meetings to discuss how the service was working. Staff communicated regularly with both clinical and administrative teams at the trust, and relationships were positive and effective. The provider and the referring specialist NHS trust had also established a formal ‘cooperation of employers’ agreement to meet legal requirements relating to work involving radiation.

Service leaders were also involved in wider partnership work across the provider and attended regional meetings on a regular basis.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider, service leaders, and staff were committed to learning and improving the service. Systems were in place to share learning from incidents, complaints, and examples of good practice at both a local and national level. We saw how the provider used staff communications to share lessons learned from incidents across the organisation. Staff were also given opportunities to develop their skills and careers. We reviewed examples of the training and development pathways available to staff during their first few years working at the service.

The provider took part in research projects to help improve care and imaging services. This included work on implementing guidance for urgent findings, improving imaging protocols for new digital scanners, and exploring how community diagnostic centres could support clinical research.

Leaders were also considering future developments to the service, including the possibility of moving to a new purpose-built location. The service was also exploring the use of different types of radiotracer. This could increase the range of scans available to the referring specialist NHS trust and support the diagnosis of a wider range of conditions.