Taunton PET CT

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

This means 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 the same.

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, that they understood that they and their experience of 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.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

Staff understood the individual needs of patients. Patients said staff treated them with dignity and kindness. We observed staff interactions with patients; these were empathic and compassionate.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

We reviewed the patient engagement survey results from January 2025 to May 2025. There were 281 responses with 95% either satisfied or very satisfied with their overall experience.

The service made adjustments for patients and met their specific needs. For example, a claustrophobic patient was offered a tour of the premises and scanner prior to their appointment. They were able to have a chaperone known to them, an appointment at the start to the day to help alleviate anxiety build up and was offered a radio to listen to throughout the scan.

Patients could obtain information on the procedure and how to complain.

Staff were able to give their time to patients in distress. We were told of an example where a patient had become distressed on the phone. The booking team were able to talk with that patient for as long as they needed and offered support.

Staff and patients had easy access to interpreters.

Patients were encouraged to take the next available appointment but they were always given options for a more convenient date and time. Appointment gaps across south west England meant patients could travel to another site to have an appointment sooner if they preferred.

Appointments were only cancelled or delayed when absolutely necessary and explained to patients. Those cancelled were supported to access care and treatment again as soon as possible. The most common reason for cancellations was patients cancelling their appointments. Staff told us this mainly was due to patients being admitted to hospital.

There had been 6 patients who did not attend (DNA) their appointment in May 2025. This rate had increased steadily month by month from January 2025. The clinical team would contact these patients and rebook them as soon as possible.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues and care planned for these accordingly. The planning of lists meant waiting and delays were kept to a minimum, although if there was a minor delay, staff explained this fully to all patients affected.

Patients understood how and when they would receive their test results. Patients also described receiving copies of letters sent between the hospital and their GP. They knew who to contact if they were worried about anything following their scan or procedure.

Services provided reflected the needs of the population and there was flexibility. For example, the service booked patients around 48 hours in advance, in case the need arose to rearrange or issue any urgent appointments.

The unit had ample onsite car parking but had devised a guide to transport links, including local buses. Drop off spaces were available for those with impaired mobility.

The service offered some weekend services for specific types of positron emission tomography (PET) scans. There was a member of the leadership team on call over the weekend in case a requirement arose to escalate any emergencies.

The service managed urgent cancer appointments by safeguarding a small number of appointment slots for patients with lung cancer in particular, who often needed their scans with a degree of urgency.

The service ensured that it met local and national KPIs for report turnaround times. Data submitted showed the average number of days taken from referral to scan in July 2025 was 0.23 days. The average number of days taken from scan to report in July 2025 was 2.3 days.

The service had an image optimisation team who reviewed around 200 scans for each centre per month. Images were graded 1 to 5, one being the poorest score and 5 the highest. Image and reporting quality were audited within the service and compared to national outcomes across the organisation. There was a governance process for scans which fell below a score of 3.

Staff felt positive and proud working for the service. We reviewed staff survey results for November 2024 and results showed staff felt respected, supported and valued.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

The service had an employee assistance programme and offered flexible working arrangements.