Poole PET-CT Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment this key question was not rated. At this assessment this key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The service usually made sure patient’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed patient’s needs. Scans were planned and delivered in line with evidence-based, guidance, standards and best practice.

There were processes to ensure the right person got the right scan, at the right time. Staff printed out all referrals in advance of patients attending and called the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposures) Regulations (IR(ME)R) practitioner licence holder (formerly Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee licence holder) or referrer if there were any queries or discrepancies on the referrals. Staff told us they knew the licence holders well, spoke to them regularly and they were readily available for advice.

The service had a PET-CT operational procedure and local safety rules. We found these were in date and reflected IR(ME)R best practise. The service also had local PET-CT protocols which had been approved for different pathways and which were also in date.

Staff said patients did not routinely require pain relief. Staff assisted patients into comfortable positions for imaging wherever possible. Patients had access to drinking water as needed or required. There was a water dispenser for patient use.

The service usually planned and delivered patient’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance including Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) regulations 2017 (IR(ME)R). Policies and procedures were made available to staff at provider and site-specific level for the service. All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, and clear references to current national guidelines. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and management newsletters. We saw notice boards displaying up to date guidance to staff.

The scanning protocols and procedures were reviewed and approved by a consultant radiologist and Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposures) Regulations (IR(ME)R) practitioner license holder in the case of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning.

Image and reporting quality were audited within the service and compared to national outcomes across the organisation. The service had an image optimisation team who reviewed around 10% of scans for each centre per month. Images were graded one to five, one being the poorest score and five the highest. We requested the latest image quality audit which showed that between December 2024 and January 2025, the service reviewed 506 scans of which 415 (82%) received grade five (the highest quality grading). No scans at Poole had been graded with a score of one.

The service usually worked well across teams and services to support patient. Staff made sure patient only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when patient moved between different services.

Radiographers, radiologists and other professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

Staff reported healthy working relations across staff groups. We saw and heard examples of effective team working which was based on mutual respect and trust.

Radiology staff worked closely with the referrers to enable patients to have a prompt diagnosis and treatment pathway. Staff contacted wards, surgeries and other health care professionals to discuss any specific health care needs in preparation for the scan. They telephoned all patients or their carers to discuss the preparation needed and confirmed the conversations with an email or letter.

Staff worked closely with referring consultants from the acute trust and Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposures) Regulations (IR(ME)R) practitioner licence holders and other designated reporters. Liaison and communication took place by telephone, email and in face-to-face meetings.

When overall responsibility for the care and treatment of a patient moved to a different service provider, such as transfer to the NHS, there was effective communication.

The service generally supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There was limited health promotion available to patients in the centre as information provided related to the procedure being undertaken. Patients were advised not to smoke for six hours prior to the scan. They were also provided with information regarding when they could eat or drink, before and after the scan.

Staff advised patients regarding post scan care and referred them back to their GP or consultant if they had additional questions relating to their health conditions.

The service monitored patient’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patient themselves.

The provider considered health inequalities and took steps to ensure that outcomes across people with protected characteristics were in line with the wider community.

Staff always had access to up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive information on patient’s care and treatment. All staff had access to an electronic records system they could all update, although the service did not have access to the acute trust radiology booking system on the site.

The service participated in relevant national clinical audits. The service regularly reviewed the effectiveness of care and treatment through local audit and national audit with a structured audit programme. These audits included a monthly hand hygiene, an annual image quality and an annual Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposures) Regulations (IR(ME)R) audit. The service was accredited by the Quality Standards for Imaging (QSI). QSI was designed to be applied within an imaging service for the purposes of quality improvement. It articulated the expectations of good imaging, international radiology and teleradiology services. It reflected wide consultation and valuable comments and suggestions received from professional colleagues and relevant UK government agencies and regulatory bodies.

All PET-CT reporters were included in the national programme of peer review reporting audit scheme. This was a randomised 10% surveillance audit undertaken by auditors independent to the reporting clinicians. This was a centrally coordinated audit process carried out by the organisation. The results were held centrally, with feedback provided throughout the year to reporters to allow for professional development and improvement of practice.

The service told patient about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Patients were sent an information leaflet explaining the PET-CT scan procedure including what they needed to do prior to the appointment, when they arrived, the examination and results. Patients we spoke with confirmed they had completed a safety questionnaire and had given their consent for the procedure they had attended for.

We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care or treatment. Chaperones were provided if requested.

The service had a consent policy which was up-to-date and provided patients with written information about the consent process prior to attending for appointment.

Patients consented to undergo PET-CT at the point of referral with their consultant. Staff confirmed patients were happy to proceed with the scan during the pre-scan health questionnaire and patients signed the form to confirm their information was correct.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent. Staff knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff followed the services policies related to consent, mental capacity, deprivation of liberty and restrictive practice, as relevant.

Interpreters were used to support patients to give informed consent, including for British Sign Language (BSL) and face to face interpreting for patients who did not speak English, when necessary.

All staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and knew where to access the current polices. Staff could describe how to access the policy on Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff knew how they would carry out and document a capacity assessment if required.