Nuffield Health Bristol Hospital - The Chesterfield

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

We looked for evidence that patients were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We assessed the levels of patient’s privacy and dignity afforded to patients. We asked patients to tell us about their experiences, if they were respected, and how they were treated. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take patient’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. However, patient’s personal details were not always recorded in private.

At our last assessment we rated the combined outpatients and diagnostic imaging key question of caring as good. At this assessment we have rated caring for diagnostic imaging as 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 evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always protect people’s privacy. However, they treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

The weighing scales and height measure was located in a corridor which was visible to other people in the area. This meant that patient weights and height were taken in public view.

The service had identified there could be privacy concerns around the reception area due to the layout of the building. The reception area was located near openly accessible areas where people could overhear information being discussed. However, they had actions to reduce risk of information being overheard.

All rooms were lockable to maintain privacy. During our assessment, we saw staff keeping doors closed and secure when they were attending to patients. However, we observed on one occasion a door not being fully closed or secured during an appointment.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and took account of their individual needs. Staff wore name badges so they could be identified. They introduced themselves and took time to explain what their role was. Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. They took their time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

Staff proactively anticipated instances where patients may become anxious or distressed about their procedure and took steps to reduce stress within the environment. We observed staff engaging with people during a scan. Staff kept patients informed of what was happening and responded to their needs.

Staff maintained patients’ dignity and ensured they were not unduly exposed during their scan. Staff were respectful to the patients. All patients we spoke with said staff treated them well and with kindness. The mobile MRI unit had 2 changing rooms available. However, the service only used 1 room so patients did not meet on the MRI unit. This protected patients’ privacy.

The provider participated in Patient-Led Assessment of the Care Environment (PLACE), which is a review of the care environment from patients and staff. In 2025, the hospital scored higher than the national and provider average for privacy, dignity and wellbeing.

People told us that staff were kind, compassionate and treated them with dignity. A patient said, “… they were very pleasant. The assistant was chatty, and the radiologist was informative.”

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they related to care needs. During our assessment, we observed staff individualising care to benefit patients. For example, we saw staff discussing care options with a patient who had 2 referrals for injection guided ultrasounds. This led to the referral the patient was most concerned with being carried out first. Staff also checked if the patient was driving to the appointment as the procedure could affect driving ability.

Where appropriate, staff provided patients aftercare advice. For example, patients were also given pain charts to complete and provide to the image referrer at the next consultation.

Patients felt that staff explained everything well. They felt part of their care journey. For example, a patient said, “The service was very good, clear with what needed to be done and were very helpful and friendly.”

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

Earplugs were available which protected patients’ ears and helped to reduce the noise in MRI. For those patients demonstrating heightened anxiety, staff provide choice and control to patients, such as visiting the service before appointment to look at equipment, bringing someone with them, and the use of music during the scan.

Patients using the service told us staff kept them informed of what was happening. A patient told us “I was kept comfortable throughout and they kept in good communication about what was happening.”

The service had a chaperone process to support people if they needed it. Staff understood their role as a chaperone.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional in how they 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.

Staff closely monitored patients during their scan to check they were comfortable. Staff would pause the scan if a patient requested this, or if a patient experienced any pain, anxiety, or discomfort. Staff carried out regular checks to ensure that a patient’s specific needs were met.

MRI scanners can cause feelings of panic or being trapped for some patients due to the narrow, enclosed space. We observed staff spending time talking with patients about the feelings people may have when having a scan. Patients told us that staff made them feel at ease and were in constant communication with them during the scan and told them what was happening next. The service received feedback from patients using the service. Patients described how staff were helpful and responded to their needs when they were nervous.

Patients could summon staff when needed, and there were emergency call bells sited close to patients in clinical areas. The patient changing areas had emergency call points to raise alarm in case of an emergency. During our assessment, we observed staff testing emergency call bells with a patient to provide assurance they worked.

The mobile MRI scanner was based in a car park owned by the provider. Patients visiting the MRI service had access to the waiting area inside an adjacent building. During our assessment we observed staff escorting patients from the waiting area to the mobile scanner. Patients told us this was very helpful so they knew when they could enter the mobile unit.

Patients told us staff were reassuring. A patient told us “They were prompt with appointment times, and I appreciated the radiologist showing the images and giving the results to reassure me that there was nothing to worry about.” Another said, “They were so respectful, whatever age you are. They talk to you and make you feel more comfortable. I was nervous no matter how many times you’ve done it before.” We were also told, “Staff were absolutely lovely. I was petrified; they reassured me and were brilliant.” And “Staff were so accommodating. They could see how nervous I was.”

The service had a quiet room that people using the service could access.

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

Staff had access to resources and facilities for safe working. This included being able to take breaks.

Staff had access to benefits and wellbeing support. This included healthcare and financial support. They could access free membership to a gym operated by the provider to support their wellbeing. Staff had access to free physical health checks. Staff told us they felt supported and their managers looked after their wellbeing. Staff, we spoke with told us they valued the benefits offered.

Most staff said that there was a positive team culture. During our assessment staff told us they worked well together as a team across job roles. The staff survey from December 2025 showed a score of 7.4 out of 10 for how staff viewed peer relationships. This was behind the hospital’s benchmark score of 8.6.

Staff at the service had access to continued professional development. This included training packages organised with specialist equipment providers. Staff told us that training was useful. However, staff told us they would like to have more training opportunities and access to further education.

Staff could develop professionally within the provider’s structure. The service developed staff to become radiation protection supervisors and administration staff supported the governance team. The service also provided opportunities for students to complete clinical placements.

There were processes for staff to be nominated for their work and performance. Meeting records showed staff were nominated by colleagues and rewarded for their contribution. Meeting records also showed staff were encouraged to share their ideas.

Staff had access to staff facilities and a quiet room located in the department. The quiet room had wellbeing information available and contact details for various support resources.

There was no lone working in the department. If a member of staff was required out of hours, then a member of staff from another department would be available.

The service had wellbeing champions and mental health first aiders, who could provide support to staff.

Not all staff received training in dealing with violence and aggression. Records showed that staff working in reception areas did not receive training in how to deal with people who became aggressive. Concerns about how aggressive behaviour was managed was discussed at staff forum.