Chenies Mews Imaging Centre

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

The service was responsive to the needs of patients, offering flexible appointment options, clear communication, and adjustments for individual circumstances. Staff demonstrated awareness of patient preferences and made reasonable adaptations to support access, comfort and understanding. Patients were given appropriate information before and during their visit, and feedback mechanisms were in place. While formal complaints were rare, the service had systems to respond to concerns and improve care. Access was equitable across NHS and private pathways, and patients were supported regardless of language, mobility, or sensory needs.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

Staff consistently tailored care to individual patient needs. Patients were offered flexible appointment times, including weekend slots, and were supported to attend at short notice where clinically appropriate. Claustrophobic patients were given additional time, reassurance, and dry-run sessions to reduce anxiety. Adjustments were made for patients with mobility needs, including the use of slide boards and coordination with the NHS trust for hoist support when required.

Patients were seen by familiar staff, and continuity of care was maintained through consistent team allocation. Radiographers and administrative staff demonstrated awareness of patient preferences and worked to accommodate them. The service also supported transitions between sites when needed, ensuring patients could be scanned promptly if issues arose at another site managed by the provider.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients received clear and timely information about their appointments, procedures, and aftercare. Booking confirmations were sent via email and included safety forms and preparation guidance. Staff explained procedures before imaging and answered questions to ensure patients understood what to expect. Written consent was obtained for contrast and interventional scans, and patients were given time to consider their options. This was supported by a range of written information. Appointment letters included arrival times, preparation instructions and advice about issues patients needed to declare before cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, such as implanted devices, recent surgery or previous reactions to contrast. Patients were also given written information about accessing their scans through the secure online portal, including how to register, use the service and withdraw consent for email communication if they wished. Aftercare information following contrast administration included advice on expected effects, delayed reactions, extravasation and who to contact if concerns developed after leaving the department.

Information leaflets were available for private patients, and staff used verbal explanations to supplement written materials. Patients were informed of how to access their reports, and NHS patients had results uploaded to the trust’s electronic systems. When contrast agents were used, patients were encouraged to remain in the department briefly after procedures and were advised to report any concerns.

Staff actively listened to patients and involved them in decisions about their care. Patients were asked about preferences prior to scans, including music choices and comfort measures. Staff adapted communication styles to suit individual needs and ensured patients had opportunities to ask questions. Interpreter services were available and used appropriately, including British Sign Language and telephone-based translation. Staff did not rely on accompanying persons to interpret, and a hearing loop was available for patients with hearing impairments.

Feedback was collected through surveys and verbal comments, and patients described feeling heard and supported. Staff were observed responding to patient concerns during the assessment, and adjustments were made in real time to improve comfort and understanding.

The service had a complaints policy in place, which outlined the process for acknowledging, investigating, and responding to concerns. Staff were able to describe how complaints were managed and resolved, and there was evidence that feedback was used to inform service delivery. Patients were able to provide feedback online and verbal comments, and staff reported that concerns were addressed promptly and informally where appropriate. During the inspection, complaints information was visible in the department and accessible to patients, and there was no indication that patients lacked awareness of how to raise a concern.

The service was accessible to a broad patient population, with step-free access, wheelchair-friendly facilities, and flexible appointment systems. NHS patients were scheduled via a monthly rolling list, with appointments offered within agreed timeframes.

Private patients were able to book directly and were often seen within one week. Same-day appointments were available, and patients could be transferred to the Queen Square site, managed by the provider, if needed.

Interpreter services and reasonable adjustments were in place to support patients with language, cognitive or physical needs. The service did not monitor waiting lists by demographic group, but staff told us there was a fair and consistent approach to scheduling. Staff contacted patients prior to appointments to confirm attendance and discuss any support needs, which helped reduce non-attendance and improve access.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.