Taunton PET CT

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 the same.

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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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.

Interpreters were available for patients via the telephone in the first instance and face to face if required. Patients living with dementia were able to bypass queues at reception. The department had a hearing loop for those with hearing loss and was easily accessible for those with mobility issues.

People had timely access to test results and diagnosis. From referral to report time took on average 3 days for the positron emission tomography (PET) scans.

Services ran on time and patients were kept informed if there was any disruption.

Services were delivered and made accessible to take account of the needs of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

There were positive and collaborative relationships with external partners to build a shared understanding of challenges within the system and the needs of the relevant population, and to deliver services to meet those needs.

There was transparency and openness with all stakeholders about performance.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as required.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

The service identified and met the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. Information was collected by the bookings team and staff accessed patient care records to look for any information about reasonable adjustments which might be required for each patient.

Staff communicated with people so that they understood their care, treatment and condition and any advice given. Patients we spoke with were clear that staff communicated with them in a way they understood.

Staff sought accessible ways to communicate with people including the use of translation services where a patients first language was not English. Staff explained they did see patients with dementia and learning disabilities. Staff were aware of the dementia and learning disability link nurses and records showed 100% of staff had completed dementia and learning disability awareness as part of their mandatory training.

There had been no complaints raised about the service or referred to the ombudsman in last 12 months.

There were feedback form boxes in the waiting area and patients were also offered the opportunity to feedback their experience digitally. Patient surveys were in use and the questions were sufficiently open ended to allow people to express their views.

Staff told us it was easy to use the system to make a complaint or raise concerns. There was support available to assist patients with sensory loss or communication difficulties to make complaints to ensure their voices were heard.

Patients received written information about where they would get their results and what to do if they had any questions or concerns following their examination.

People we spoke with told us they felt listened to, respected and had their views considered.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. For example, imaging couches were inclusive so they could accommodate bariatric patients and those with reduced mobility. Staff explained they were considering a move to chairs in the uptake bays following some patient feedback around comfort whilst patients waited for their radioactive injection to be absorbed.

There was adequate medical cover throughout the time the service was open.

Support with transport was available to service users with mobility issues, and the service had issued a guide to public transport links close to the site. Drop off spaces were available for less mobile patients.

Patients told us they were offered a choice of appointments and there were some next day appointments available if needed. Although these were largely to support any ad hoc scanning requests from lung cancer clinics.

Patients told us they could access care and treatment at a time to suit them. Once a referral was received a dedicated bookings team contacted the patient to arrange the scan at their earliest convenience.

Information was provided to service users in accessible formats before appointments, including contact details, hospital map and directions, consultant name and information about any tests. The hospital had a hearing loop for those patients with hearing impairment or loss and sign language or other translators could be arranged via telephone in the case of spoken languages.

The service actively encouraged patients to share their experiences and feedback. People’s views were gathered and acted on to shape and improve the services, which included people in a range of equality groups. The service had links with local carer networks and the trust wide patient and public forum.

We were told when patients had no fixed abode or telephone number, the service liaised with their registered GP.

Staff were trained in equality and diversity.

The service identified and met the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. The bookings team provided as much information to the technologists and radiographers in advance of the list. When reasonable adjustments were required, flags would be input onto the patient electronic record, such as dementia or sensory loss. Patients with a disability could access and use services on an equal basis to others.

Patients told us they were happy with the amount of information they received before attending for their appointment.

Staff sought accessible ways to communicate with people including the use of translation services where a patients first language was not English.

The service was taking steps to engage with the transgender community in respect of inclusive pregnancy checking and non-gendered toilet facilities.

Staff were aware of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) orders when patients came to the department for procedures. Where appropriate, patient information was transported with patients when attending a scan or procedure.

Patients requiring additional support were identified, this included people at risk of developing a long-term condition.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to people who used services, including deteriorating health and wellbeing, medical emergencies or behaviour that challenged.

There were clear pathways and processes for the management of patients within the department who were clinically unwell and required hospital admission.

Information needed to deliver safe care and treatment was available to relevant staff in a timely and accessible way. This included test and imaging results, care and risk assessments, care plans and case notes.

There were clear processes to escalate unexpected or significant findings both at the examination and upon reporting. The service had processes for patients if they had a complication post procedure. All patients received a leaflet of follow up information in a format they could understand.

People were supported to make decisions in line with relevant legislation and guidance. Imaging options were discussed, and patients were encouraged to be part of the decision-making process. For example, patients were encouraged to visit and try the scanner if there was a possibility they might be claustrophobic or struggle to lie for the whole scan.

People were empowered and supported, where necessary, to use and link with support networks and advocacy, so that it had a positive impact on their health, care and wellbeing. For example, patients were signposted to various support groups for cancer and some carers networks.

Staff made sure that patients and those close to them were able to find further information, including community and advocacy services, or ask questions about their care and treatment. Staff told us they felt they had time to speak with patients and answer any questions. Patients received written information about where they would get their results and what to do if they had any questions or concerns following their examination.