Taunton PET CT

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 we did not rate this key question. This key question has been rated good.

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

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

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 completed a comprehensive health assessment of the patient at the start of their journey.

Reasonable adjustments were made for patients where required. Chaperones were offered to patients. We were told when patients had no fixed abode or telephone number, the service liaised with their registered GP.

Staff understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received training around mental capacity and explained they would escalate any concerns they had about patients attending for their scan to the radiologists on duty. The process for seeking consent was monitored and reviewed to ensure it met legal requirements and followed relevant national guidance. Audit data from October 2024 showed 100% compliance for patient consent.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. For example, the service audited patient identification checks and correct examinations undertaken. The service scored 100% compliance in October 2024. Other audits included infection prevention and control, cannulation audit and image quality.

The service had received accreditation in the Quality Standard for Imaging (QSI) and the British Standard 70000. This latter included medical physics, clinical engineering and associated scientific services in healthcare requirements for quality, safety and competence for imaging services.

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the service. Staff were experienced and qualified, and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of patients. Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings.

Staff told us they received a monthly one-to-one meeting with their manager which was face to face. These meetings offered an opportunity to discuss care management, to reflect and learn from practice and for personal support. Staff received a mid-year and end of year appraisal of their work performance. Staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles.

The service ensured that best practice guidelines for acting on an image report were followed. Radiologists used the electronic reporting system to flag urgent images.

The service ensured radiation doses were kept as low as reasonably practicable and diagnostic referral levels (DRLs) had been established for all procedures undertaken. We were told the medical physics team audited all doses against DRLs on an annual basis which fed into the dose optimisation committee for action and discussion. However, we requested the most recent DRL audit and received one dated November 2021. The international commission on radiological protection (ICRP) guidance suggests the frequency of DRL audits should be at least 3 yearly.

Through the use of clinical lead meetings, the service identified and implemented relevant best practice and guidance. The service audited their practice locally, for example, an ongoing referrer audit. We saw results of this audit and there was 100% compliance.

Staff held regular multidisciplinary meetings. The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers with other relevant teams within the organisation. For example, the booking team, on site hospital, medical experts and advisors.

Appointments were offered to patients who were out of area so they could be seen earlier if they were prepared to travel. They were reimbursed for their travel costs.

There was limited health promotion available to patients in the centre as information provided related to the procedure being undertaken.

Staff used recognised tools to improve the detection and response to clinical deterioration in patients as a key element of patient safety and improving patient outcomes.

Staff used technology to support patients effectively. Image quality scores were audited and monitored. The service ensured that best practice guidelines for acting on an image report were followed. Radiologists used the electronic reporting system to flag urgent images.

The service held regular audit meetings to review performance and there was evidence of quality improvement, support, and training.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. Staff gained consent from patients for their care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. If staff felt a patient lacked the capacity to consent to the procedure, they would seek further advice. Patients were provided with written and verbal information prior to their appointment to enable them to understand the planned diagnostic test.