Trinity Medical Imaging

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed that staff interactions with patients and their relatives &/or carers were respectful, caring and treated people with kindness. Staff were observed to take time to explain information, respond to patients and/ or their relatives’ questions.

Staff showed that they understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal needs.

Staff said they would feel able to raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences given the culture within the service and the close knit nature of the team. For example, patients and their relatives, told us staff had treated them well and behaved respectfully towards them. Also that staff supported them to understand and manage their treatment. Within patient surveys, feedback said staff had treated patients well and behaved appropriately towards them.

However, when we spoke to staff, they told us they did not routinely refer patients onwards or directly direct patients to other services. Instead, when required, staff said they would feedback to the Registered Manager, who would then feedback to the referring clinician. This is because the service felt their interactions with their patients were brief and giving feedback to the referring clinician was appropriate, as referrers had the patient’s full clinical picture and could better support patients to access services they required or would benefit from.

Staff took steps to maintain patients’ confidentiality; however, the layout of the service posed challenges to consistently achieving this. The reception and main waiting area were open plan and located adjacent to one another. This meant there was a risk that confidential information could be overheard, for example, when appointments were being arranged or during conversations between staff and patients at the reception desk or within the waiting area. However, the provider reported that private conversations could be facilitated in a separate waiting room away from the main reception area, where requested.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff told us the service offered flexibility in appointment scheduling to meet the needs of patients and their relatives, including adjustments to the time of day and date of the appointments offered, as well as the provision of extended appointments subject to vetting requirements, where appropriate. This feedback from staff was supported by the views shared by the patients and relatives that we spoke with.

During the inspection, the inspection team observed staff supporting patients and relatives to understand their care and treatment. Staff were caring in their approach, responded to questions, and supported patients to make decisions in line with their preferences. Staff also shared information about the risks associated with radiation with patients and their relatives to facilitate informed decision making.

However, there was limited evidence to demonstrate how the views and feedback of patients and relatives were used by staff and leaders to inform service systems or drive service improvements from the staff responses to patients’ comments in the patient surveys.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service provided flexible appointment arrangements to meet the needs of patients and their relatives. This included offering longer appointments and adjusting dates and times, in line with vetting requirements. Feedback from staff was consistent with feedback from patients and relatives, who told us the service was responsive to their needs.

During the inspection, we observed staff supporting patients and relatives to understand their care and treatment. Staff gave clear and appropriate explanations, including information about the risks associated with radiation. This supported people to make informed decisions about their care in line with their preferences.

Patients and relatives, we spoke with gave consistently positive feedback. They told us they were treated with respect, felt listened to, and were supported to ask questions and make choices about their care.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Packaged biscuits and access to cold drinks were readily available to patients in the waiting area, and staff were able to offer hot drinks using on‑site facilities. The service had policy guidance dated 2017 relating to cultural and religious needs for both patients and staff. However, as the service operated as an outpatient facility, there were no catering facilities available on site.

The premises were accessible, with ground floor facilities presenting step free access and minimal trip hazards. There where disabled parking bays and an adapted toilet, and wheelchair within the hot lab. These facilities supported patients and visitors with reduced mobility. There were also facilities for sensory impairment, such as induction loops available for those with auditory loss.

We observed staff accommodating the needs of an anxious patient by allowing a relative to provide support during the scanning process. Staff provided emotional support and reassurance, demonstrated empathy, and were considerate of the anxiety and distress shown by the patient.

The service had a chaperone policy in place, which provided guidance on the use of same‑sex chaperones and chaperoning during intimate examinations, procedures or treatments. Clear signage informing patients of the availability of chaperones was not observed in publicly accessed areas. However, the provider reported that Chaperone information was displayed on a rotating electronic notice board in reception. This was not clearly or prominently displayed in clinical areas.

Patients told us that they felt their needs, views and wishes were listened to. They reported being able to ask questions and said that staff provided clear and helpful information about their procedures. Patients did not raise concerns in these areas, and this feedback was reflected in the patient survey data shared by the provider.

Observations of staff interactions with patients and their relatives showed that patients were involved in decision‑making about how their procedures were carried out.

Staff described a range of reasonable adjustments available to support patients, including arranging additional time for appointments where appropriate and subject to requirements specified during referral vetting. Staff also shared examples of how anxiety and phobias were managed, including the use of de‑escalation techniques and allowing relatives or carers to support patients, subject to patient consent.

Information about appointment waiting times and scan reporting waiting times was communicated to patients throughout their journey. This was available via the service website, verbal staff feedback, more formally communicated written information regarding clinical target times, shared by the service such as texts and emails. However, there was no evidence of the provider monitoring time from arrival to being seen.

The did not attend (DNA) rate was above the provider’s target of 5% for most of the period between April 2025 and February 2026, although performance was close to target and improved to 2% in January 2026. The service contacted patients, rescheduled appointments where appropriate and informed referring clinician.

Mandatory training information showed that this did not include training around autism, dementia or learning disabilities awareness. Staff did not receive specific formal training on understanding and supporting the additional needs that may be associated with patients and other visitors with these additional needs.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff at different levels told us they felt respected, supported and valued within the service. They said their leaders understood and listened to their concerns. Staff described how wellbeing was promoted through access to the on-site kitchen facilities for staff breaks, office space on the first floor for administrative work and reporting, and the availability of reasonable adjustments, such as flexible working arrangements where required due to personal circumstances.

Staff also told us they were provided with both physical and psychological space for debriefing. This included designated staff‑only areas on site and access to psychological support through daily on‑site support, the staff messaging system, and discussions held during staff meetings.

Staff safety was promoted by the service ensuring that two clinicians were always on site. On the day of the inspection, we observed that the clinical staff team was further supported by a non‑clinical receptionist.

Staff told us that opportunities for professional development were limited due to the size of the service and staff team. However, development opportunities were available where possible.

There was limited evidence of staff engagement in external research, collaboration with partner services, or formal accreditations or awards. However, staff told us they were supported to attend British Nuclear Medicine Society (BNMS) meetings twice a year, and there was evidence submitted of poster presentations.

The Registered Manager (RM) told us leaders actively engaged with staff through the staff messaging system, weekly attendance on site, and frequent ad hoc visits by the other service director. Staff also described team social activities, including a Christmas dinner and social events held. The RM told us when they met with the Radiation Protection Adviser on site, lunch was provided for the whole staff team.

The RM told us that national workforce shortages had affected recruitment and that vacancies were advertised both within the UK and internationally. They said the service was currently sponsoring members of staff with UK work visas.