Lakeside Medical Diagnostics

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 looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion.

We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, we checked that they understood that how they were treated and supported mattered.

We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

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 organisation’s with kindness and respect.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. We observed staff consistently demonstrating these behaviours.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social, and religious needs.

Staff ensured that chaperones were available.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

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.

The service was located on the ground floor and accommodated wheelchair access.
Staff booked patients with hearing difficulties into satellite clinics equipped with hearing loop systems.

Staff ensured that both male and female radiographers were available when patients expressed a preference for the gender of the person performing their scan.

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 identified when patients needed additional communication support and arranged interpreters for appointments booked in advance.

The service had an exclusion criteria which identified patients they were unable to accommodate, for example those who required a hoist and redirected them to another local provider.

Staff provided clear information about what patients could expect when attending the service.

Staff responded to patients’ questions appropriately and in a language patients could easily understand.

We observed staff offering patients a choice of dates and locations.

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.

Staff scheduled appointments in ways that met patients’ needs. The registered manager gave an example where they had liaised with another provider when a patient required an urgent scan but could not travel to the service’s location. The patient was seen promptly the following day at another provider.

The service acted on patient feedback and gave examples of actions taken, for example improved attendance through pre-appointment reminder calls.

Patients received clear instructions on how to receive their results. Their results were also sent to the patients GP, who had initially referred the patient to the service.

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 reported feeling respected, supported and valued. They expressed strong pride and positivity in their roles and emphasised the importance of being part of a supportive, collaborative team. Many described the team as “family”.

Topics discussed during appraisals included continuing professional development and reflective practice. Clinicians identified and shared learning related to incidental findings. The service incorporated this learning into its ongoing development work