Medserena Upright MRI 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

Our rating of responsive stayed the same. We rated responsive as good.

Services were planned and delivered to meet people's needs, took account of people's individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback about their experiences. People could access the service when they needed it, in a way that promoted equality and protected their rights.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People who used the service told us their needs were taken into account prior to admission and scan procedures were undertaken in accordance with their expectations and preferences.

Staff told us they discussed people's individual clinical and personal needs with them prior to commencing scans.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. We saw staff demonstrating a good understanding of people's needs and undertook scan procedures appropriately.

Most staff had completed mandatory training on learning disability and autism awareness. Staff told us that some patients with learning disabilities or those living with dementia could be admitted for treatment if they fulfilled the eligibility criteria and had the capacity to make their own decisions.

Staff were able to describe how they would make reasonable adjustments, such as allowing flexibility in people's appointment times and allowing them to be accompanied by a relative or carer during their treatment.

Services were planned and delivered to meet people’s needs. Scan referral requests were booked in advance and this enabled staff to plan the staffing and resources required to undertake scan procedures before people attended their scheduled appointment.

Staff carried out daily huddles at the start of each day to plan activities and discuss any risks or issues. Radiographers sought input from referring clinicians or consultant radiologists if they required further information or advice about people’s eligibility or referral requirements and in relation to the delivery of scan images and reports.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. The service had 1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner with an adjacent control room, from which staff could operate the scanner and observe people during their scan. The service carried out scan lists on weekdays and Saturdays.

The service had dedicated car parking spaces located near the entrance to premises. There was a spacious waiting area, which provided a suitable environment for people awaiting scans. Staff had access to a kitchen area and provided people and those accompanying them with free hot and cold drinks and biscuits.

People who used the service told us their scan procedures were well coordinated, and staff planned and delivered their scan procedures in a way that met their needs. They told us they had not experienced any issues or delays with their scan images or reports.

Stakeholders and service partners spoke positively about working with the service. They told us staff across the service were well-organised, responsive and that they received timely scan images and reports in accordance with their contractual obligations.

Staff told us they provided people with relevant information and discussed this with them, so they were well informed about their scan procedures. People who used the service told us staff provided them with necessary information about their scan and that staff answered any questions they had.

People could access information on the provider's website and social media platforms relating to the services they offered. People received information verbally and in writing prior to undertaking scan procedures.

We saw notice boards included information for staff and people who used the service. Information leaflets were readily available. Staff told us they could provide written information in different languages or other formats, if required. Staff could access interpreter and sign language services for people where required.

Information around performance, safety incidents, audits and complaints was shared with staff during daily huddles and routine staff meetings.

Information such as policies and guidelines were available in paper and electronic format. Paper records were held securely, and electronic care records were easily accessible by staff and kept secure with password-protected access. Staff told us they could easily access information such as care records, policies and guidance relevant to their role.

Most staff had completed mandatory training in cyber security and information governance. Scan images and reports were held securely using cloud-based systems and sent to the referring clinician or another appointed clinician if they were privately funded. The service had arrangements for external IT support to manage the security of electronic information and for support in the event of a system failure.

The service had a corporate information governance lead. There had been no Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) reportable data breaches relating to the service in the 12 months prior to our inspection.

Information about how to raise complaints was displayed in the waiting area. This stated that complaints would be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 5 working days, with further updates if investigations took longer. However, this information was contradictory to the provider’s standard operating procedure for receiving and acting on complaints, which stated that complaints would be acknowledged and responded to within 14 days.

The complaints information displayed in the waiting area also informed people they could raise concerns directly with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). We informed the operations manager that CQC do not have the legal authority to investigate individual complaints about health and social care services (except for Mental Health Act complaints).

The provider’s standard operating procedure for receiving and acting on complaints did not include information about how people would escalate their concerns internally within the organisation or externally to independent organisations such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) for NHS referrals or independent complaints adjudicator services for privately funded service users.

The service reported they had received 3 formal complaints during the 12 months prior to our inspection. The reasons for the complaints included people not being satisfied with the scan reports or delays in receiving their report. We saw evidence to show all 3 complaints had been investigated and responded to in a timely manner. Two of these complaints were resolved within 5 days.

People who used the service told us they had been given information on and understood how to raise complaints or concerns. Complaints were investigated and responded to by senior managers. Staff told us information about complaints was discussed and learning was shared through daily huddles and routine staff meetings.

Staff told us they encouraged people to provide feedback about the care and treatment they received. This was done informally through daily engagement and online review sites and formally through participation in surveys.

The most recent annual satisfaction survey results were based on 105 responses and included questions about people’s overall satisfaction using the service. The survey results showed 93% of respondents fed back they were extremely or very satisfied with the service overall. The service also achieved positive responses (over 95%) across the other survey questions relating to wait times, cleanliness and staff interactions and communication.

Feedback from online review sites also showed the service had achieved an average rating score of 4.9 out of 5 from 887 reviews. The satisfaction survey and online review results indicated most people had a positive experience using the service.

Managers told us complaints, compliments and feedback from surveys informed learning and improvement. Staff were able to give examples of improvements made following people’s feedback, such as raised awareness to minimise documentation errors during booking referral processes.

People who used the service could be admitted through a number of routes, such as self-referral (if privately funded or insured) or through referral from regional NHS hospitals or other healthcare service providers. The provider's inclusion and exclusion criteria determined who was eligible for admission to the service.

The service had undertaken 4,778 scan procedures between 1 August 2024 and 1 August 2025. The operations manager told us approximately 40% of scans were for NHS referrals and 60% for privately funded or insured people.

The operations manager told us routine scans lasted 20 to 30 minutes with more complex scans (such as combined head and spinal scans) lasting over an hour. People's appointments were staggered throughout the day so they did not have to wait for a long period of time on the day of their scan procedure.

Managers monitored waiting times and made sure people could access services promptly when needed. People did not experience delays from their initial booking or referral to the day of their scan procedure. The service did not have any backlogs or waiting lists for people awaiting scans and had sufficient capacity to schedule appointments promptly, dependant on people's preferences.

People who used the service told us they received treatment in a prompt and timely manner and did not experience long waits when booking their scan procedure or when they arrived on the day of their appointment. They told us they were given clear information on the timelines for scan procedures and reporting processes.

There had been 6 incidents reported since February 2024 where people's appointments had been cancelled due to MRI equipment failures. These had been promptly rescheduled to minimise any impact to the people affected by the cancellation.

The service reported there had been 2 instances where people were readmitted due to scan reporting issues during the 12 months prior to our inspection. One of these was because a consultant radiologist had requested additional sequences. The other incident related to a scan referral interpretation error by staff and a further scan was scheduled within 2 days for the additional scan images required.

There had been 47 instances where people did not attend their appointment in the 12 months prior to our inspection. Staff told us they followed up each person to determine why they did not attend their appointment.

Staff followed the provider's equality, diversity and inclusion policy, which outlined a commitment to embed diversity, promote equal opportunities and support non-discriminatory practices when delivering care and treatment. New and existing policies and procedures included equality impact assessments.

All staff had completed mandatory training in equality, diversity and human rights. Staff were able to describe the processes for embedding equity including how they ensured they did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

People who used the service told us their needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff. They told us they were treated with equality and in a non-discriminatory way.

The nature of the diagnostic scan procedures provided by the service meant it was difficult to differentiate outcomes for people with protected characteristics. However, we looked at data around incidents, feedback from people who used the service and complaints and this did not identify any disparity in care experiences, adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics.

People who used the service told us the staff discussed their scan procedure and expectations for scan results as part of their initial assessment. Staff told us timelines for scan reporting were explained to people.

The nature of the diagnostic scan procedures provided by the service meant most people attended the service once, unless multiple scans were specified as part of their initial assessment.

The nature of the services provided meant there was no requirement for the service to provide routine after care support or follow up appointments. However, people were provided with information on how to contact the service if they had any queries about the scan procedure or for any queries around reporting of scan results. The referring clinician or organisation was responsible for any ongoing care and treatment needs.