Lakeside Medical Diagnostics

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

This means 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 as good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service worked in partnership with people to improve the quality of care. People who used the service said staff considered, their needs and carried out scans in line in accordance with their expectations and preferences.

Staff discussed each person’s clinical and personal needs before starting the scans.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and undertook scan procedures appropriately.

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 met people’s needs through advance planning. Staff booked scan referral requests ahead of time which enabled them to plan staffing and resources before people attended their scheduled appointment.

Staff met patients in the waiting area at their appointment time and escorted them to the scanning room. The waiting area was cluttered but there were relevant health leaflets available for them to read and a patient survey to fill in. Results of patient surveys showed that actions were taken after a patient complaint was received.

Staff reported that referrals were sometimes incomplete, which led to investigations being cancelled on the day which meant that the patients diagnostic investigation was delayed. Staff provided examples of when this had occurred.

A car park was located at the front of the hospital for patient and visitor use, including priority for disabled parking for easier access to the entrance.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patient information leaflets were available in the main waiting area but these were not specific to diagnostic imaging. These were not available in languages other than English and the service did not have large text available.

The service published the hospital and departmental policies on the public website. However, the website was not well maintained. We saw out of date policies, and incorrect opening days, times and contact information. Inaccurate details about policies, opening times, and key contacts increased the likelihood of delays, miscommunication, or inconsistent practice, which could affected patient safety.

However, staff provided people with relevant information and discussed this with them, so they were well informed about their scan procedures. Staff answered any questions they had from people.

Information submitted post assessment stated the service followed the NHS Accessible Information Standard.

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 made it easy for people to raise complaints about their care and treatment. The waiting area had a patient feedback survey for patients to fill in. The service used paper and digital questionnaires. Common themes included poor signage to the waiting room and long waiting time upon arrival and no delay communicated to the patient. The evidence showed that appropriate improvements were made following these complaints.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff tried to make reasonable adjustments for patients. Administrative staff telephoned patients prior to their appointment and assessed patient’s needs. However, we were informed that there was no hoist at Lakeside Medical Diagnostics and anyone who was identified as requiring a hoist would be deferred to another local provider who could accommodate them.

While staff demonstrated awareness of reasonable adjustments and proactively contacted patients to identify needs, the absence of a hoist at Lakeside Medical Diagnostics represents a significant barrier for patients requiring assisted transfers. Redirecting patients to another provider may not fully meet the anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010, particularly if this results in delays or reduced accessibility.

The service was located on the ground floor and accommodated wheelchair access.

Patients reported there was little to no waiting time for appointments when booking in.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Patients we spoke with said they felt able to speak with staff about any concerns they had.

People who used the service had their needs and preferences assessed and were understood by staff. They were treated with equality and in a non-discriminatory way.

Staff at all levels had completed Level 1 equality, diversity, and human rights training as part of their mandatory training.

Staff across the service and the wider organisation actively promoted a culture that empowered people to share their views. Patients we spoke with said they felt comfortable raising concerns with staff whenever they needed to.

Staff assessed and understood each person’s needs and preferences, and they treated everyone fairly and without discrimination.

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.

People who used the service had their scan procedure discussed with them by staff. They were satisfied with the information they received, and offered the opportunity to ask questions.

The service had processes for flagging urgent findings. The nature of the services provided meant there was no requirement for the service to provide routine after care support or follow up appointments. However, people were provided with information after their scan if they had any queries about the scan procedure or for any queries around reporting of scan results.

Because of the type of diagnostic scans offered most people attended the service once, unless multiple scans were specified as part of their initial assessment.