Trinity Medical Imaging

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

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery at the service level.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff told us the service accommodated and included patients and their relatives &/ or carers. Patients and their relatives we spoke with told us they found the service involved them in the services they or their relative received.

The information received by patients and their relatives was described as clear and we were told that staff were available to explain any points that needed clarification. The information we reviewed on site and on the service’s website was clear.

The service had an appropriate, in‑date chaperone policy. However, given its small size and predominantly female workforce, it may not have always been possible to provide same‑sex healthcare teams for all patients identifying as either male or female. However, when we spoke with patients and their relatives during the on-site assessment, this was not raised as an issue, and there were no issues raised regarding this within the patient satisfaction surveys.

There was a chaperone policy which covered the use of formal chaperones, and the inclusion of family and friends during clinical consultations, based on the patients’ expressed preferences. This included provisions available and how to manage situations when a patient’s preferred chaperone or support was unavailable, particularly when this person was family or a friend. For example, in this instance, the patient could be offered an alternative clinician.

An interpreting service was available to patients and their relatives. This was available on request, and subject to information gained from the referring clinicians. Staff demonstrated awareness of when relatives could and could not appropriately act as interpreters.

Policies and procedures were in place to support patients with protected characteristics. However, the age discrimination, equities act operational policy and a policy related to cultural and religious needs were both were dated outside of the service's 5 year policy review cycle. Mandatory staff training covered a range of subjects but did not include specific training on additional needs such as autism, dementia, or learning disabilities. This meant that staff may not have had the skills and most up to date knowledge to meet the specific needs of some patients.

There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The service had agreed targets for seeing patients referred through both NHS and independent healthcare pathways, which were monitored through audit processes. Staff told us they held regular meetings with radiology departments at acute NHS trusts that commissioned services from the provider. The service also supported another acute NHS trust as part of its contingency arrangements and accepted referrals from clinicians working in other independent healthcare providers.

Due to the volume and variety of referrals received from multiple organisations, staff reported this impacted their ability to consistently meet agreed timescales for appointments and reporting. This included challenges in prioritising and meeting national standards for cancer referrals. However, the provider had service level agreements in place and used audit processes to monitor performance and help address identified issues.

Patients referred by acute NHS trust radiology departments, had their clinical information shared securely between the referring hospital and the service using agreed electronic communication systems. The NHS and independent healthcare referrals had care pathway target times, which were monitored via audits.

The services patient did not attend (DNA) rates were monitored via a tracker and the results shared with the services' commissioning partners. Between April 2025 and February 2026, the DNA rate was above the 5% target, although close to expected levels and improved to 2% in January 2026. The service contacted patients, rearranged appointments where appropriate, and notified referring clinicians to maintain continuity of care.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

A range of patient information leaflets were available for staff to share with patients and their relatives. Staff told us information was available online and shared with patients prior to their appointments, this included emails and SMS (Short Message Service) texts. Staff took time to explain information on procedures and answer patients and their relatives’ questions as needed during phone conversations or once the patient had arrived on site.

Staff we spoke with were unable tell us about the processes associated with getting interpreter for patients who needed it. However, the leadership team showed us evidence of a contract with interpreting services and how to access them.

The patient survey was in English and featured tick boxes, which were easy to use, however it meant only people who could read English could complete it. Signage around the location was in English, as was patient information online, and on-site. Translated versions of patient information was not available.

Information on the patient’s rights to complain was available on the provider’s website and guidance on the provider’s complaints procedures was available to staff within the providers complaints policy which included a template for the complaints register. Staff we spoke to said they would report all complaints to the Registered Manager and showed a good understanding of their role in managing patient’s complaints.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff told us that they felt they could speak to colleagues regarding any concerns or issues, either face to face when on site and via the team messaging system. The Registered Manager (RM) told us staff were invited to raise concerns or issues as needed via the staff team messaging or during the weekly staff meeting.

Patients could provide feedback to the service via patient surveys and facilities for online patient feedback. Staff told us patient feedback was reviewed by the RM. Evidence submitted by the provider from patient surveys dated between July 2025 to March 2026, showed that patient feedback was consistently positive.

The provider’s complaints policy (2018) was out of date, but included the process for handling complaints, expected timescales for handling complaints, and how complaints would be monitored. We were told there had not been any complaints in the 12 months preceding to this assessment, so we were unable to review related information.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider’s policies relating to age discrimination, equities act operational policy and a policy that related to patients’ cultural and religious needs exceeded the provider’s 5 year policy review cycle, some dated back to 2017. Therefore, we could not be assured they reflected the latest guidance.

The provider treated children aged 5 years and over. There were no separate spaces or dedicated children and young people’s clinical days, which would serve to help protect and safeguard the rights of this patient group.

A hearing loop was available to support communication with those with auditory impairment. The location was wheelchair accessible at the main front entrance door, the main waiting area and reception, which include a wheelchair accessible desk. There were disabled wheelchair bays within the providers dedicated patient car parking facilities. The HOT lab toilet facilities were spacious for wheelchair access (including assistance) and adapted with rails to accommodate patients with physical needs. This was not the same in the main public facing toilet facilities, particularly if physical assistance or adaptations were required.

The first-floor staff offices are accessed via a steep staircase, fitted with 1 hand rail, as such these are not wheelchair accessible.

There were monitoring systems in place to help ensure the provider met agree timescales for scans, including target for priority referrals/ urgent scanning requests. This information was shared through the provider’s website and feedback was available to patients through staff on site.

Patient did not attend (DNA) rates were monitored via a tracker and the results were shared with the services commissioning partners. The DNA rate was above the provider’s 5% target for most of the period from April 2025 to February 2026, although it improved to 2% in January 2026. There was evidence of actions taken such as contact with patients to reschedule appointments.

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.