Chenies Mews Imaging 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

The service demonstrated a generally effective approach to diagnostic imaging, with evidence of competent staff, collaborative working, and timely reporting. Scans were delivered in line with clinical need and supported by appropriate protocols.

Staff worked well together across modalities and with external partners, including the local NHS trust. Radiologists operated under practising privileges and were part of the trust rota, enabling continuity of care and access to specialist expertise. Reporting turnaround times were monitored internally for some pathways, and no backlog was observed during our assessment.

Staff training and competency frameworks were in place and reviewed annually. All radiographers were registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and trained in MRI modality. New starters received an induction and supervision, and there was evidence of ongoing professional development.

Consent processes were observed to be appropriate for adult patients, with written consent obtained for contrast and interventional procedures. Staff were aware of mental capacity considerations and had access to guidance.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

Care and treatment were delivered in line with recognised clinical standards and local trust protocols. Imaging protocols were in date and reflected best practice, including the use of safety checklists and risk assessments prior to scanning. Staff followed established procedures for contrast administration and MRI safety screening, and there was evidence of appropriate justification for imaging referrals.

The service’s internal policies referenced relevant national guidance, including guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Royal College of Radiologists’ iRefer guidance. While imaging protocols were in place, the service had not implemented a formal peer review programme or clinical audit cycle to evaluate adherence to evidence-based practice or identify areas for improvement.

The absence of structured audit meant that assurance around evidence-based care was reliant on informal processes and professional judgement. This reduced the ability to systematically monitor quality or benchmark against external standards.

Staff worked effectively across roles and with external partners to deliver coordinated imaging services. Radiographers, administrative staff, cardiologists, and radiologists collaborated well, supported by regular team meetings and clear communication channels. Radiologists were integrated into the service through practising privileges and were part of the local NHS trust rota, which enabled continuity of care and access to specialist expertise.

There was evidence of strong operational links with the local NHS trust, including shared systems such as the picture archiving and communication system and the electronic record system used for patients, which supported timely access to imaging and reporting. While formal multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings were not routinely held on site, radiologists were available for consultation and escalation of findings. The service was flexible in accommodating patients across sites when needed, and staff told us that they had good working relationships with referring clinicians.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

The service had a structured audit programme in place, aligned with Quality Standard for Imaging (QSI), which included administrative processes, and regulatory compliance. Audit results were reviewed in governance meetings and used to inform service improvements. Reporting turnaround times were monitored for some pathways; however, the service had limited audit evidence available for cardiology reporting at the time of the assessment.

Although clinical outcome data were not routinely collected, the service demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement through audit, risk review, and staff feedback mechanisms.

Patient feedback was collected and reviewed, but there was limited evidence that it was used systematically to inform service development or outcome monitoring. The feedback provided by patients was overwhelmingly positive.

The service undertook imaging to support research activity; however, limited information was available during the assessment to demonstrate how research activity was governed and monitored locally.

Patients were provided with clear information about their procedures, including the use of contrast agents, and written consent was obtained where appropriate. We observed staff discussing procedures with patients and checking understanding prior to imaging. Consent for interventional procedures was obtained in a private setting by the radiologist, with appropriate documentation in place.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of informed consent and the Mental Capacity Act. Where concerns about capacity were identified, patients were referred to their referring clinician or supported through appropriate processes. Mental capacity was considered as part of the consent process, and staff were aware of the need to involve family members or legal representatives where necessary.

The service provided imaging for adults and children. Children could also attend the site as visitors. The consent policy included sections relating to children and young people that required updating to reflect current legal position and correct internal signposting. During the assessment, we identified incorrect links within the policy and a lack of clarity regarding the rights of 16 - and 17-year-olds, whose capacity to consent should be treated in line with adult consent principles where appropriate. The service did not use formal tools to support assessments of Gillick competence.

The consent process was supported by written information for patients undergoing contrast-enhanced or specialist imaging. The service had a patient guide explaining the use of gadolinium contrast, including why it may be needed, possible side effects and when to seek advice after the scan. It also had written information about hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan), explaining its purpose, contraindications and side effects, alongside a pre-procedure checklist that included a patient declaration and signature of the consenting professional. This supported patients to make informed decisions about their care.