Nuffield Health Bristol Hospital - The Chesterfield

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patient’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring patients were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment we did not rate the combined outpatients and diagnostic imaging key question of effective. At this assessment we have rated effective for diagnostic imaging as good. This meant patient’s outcomes were consistently good, and patient’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

was then shared with staff so they had access to the information. Any specific needs could be planned and provided for the patients.

Staff assisted patients into comfortable positions for imaging. During our assessment we saw staff checking with patients on their comfort and if they were experiencing pain.

Patients had access to drinking water as needed. There was a water dispenser and a free self-serve area for hot drinks for patient use. People using the service said they had access to hot drinks, but some patients told us they were not sure if the drinks were free.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service used the provider’s overarching policies to provide safe care and treatment. Policies we reviewed were up-to-date and followed best practice. The service had local rules and policies for staff to follow to ensure safety.

The annual Radiation Protection Adviser (RPA) audit was carried out in July 2025 and found the service to be fully compliant, with a few minor comments, with equipment safety requirements and safety regulations. The audit refers to the level of compliance with the current regulations, standards and guidance relating to the use of ionising radiation in diagnostic imaging. It covers areas such as IR(ME)R 2017 procedures, protocols and records, general radiation protection records and equipment. The audit found the service was compliant with relevant radiation protection legislation and guidance.

There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and newsletters. Records showed updates to policies and procedures were shared with staff. Managers provided new staff with appropriate induction.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The diagnostic imaging manager met with other heads of departments and hospital leadership to exchange information.

Radiology staff worked closely with referrers to enable patients to have a prompt diagnosis and treatment pathway. If they identified concerns from scans, they escalated them to the referrer. This ensured staff could share necessary information about the patient.

During our assessment, staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working with the team. However, staff said there could be difficulties working with other departments, where areas of work were not clearly defined, such as portering patients within the hospital. Managers said they were aware of this and had made some agreements with other departments to improve working relationships.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

The service had a range of health promotion information available on the provider’s website. This included mental health, men’s health, women’s health, and cancer awareness.

The service provided people with information for different scans undertaken which detailed what patients should expect during the visit and how patients should prepare for their scan.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service had a comprehensive audit process to monitor service performance. There were audits to cover safety and quality of the imaging service. Managers acted on audit findings to make improvements to the quality of care. For example, the service carried out reject analysis (review of rejected images aimed at improving quality) and had action plans to improve performance. The service had a reject rate of 7.9%. Managers analysed performance and shared actions with staff.

There was a process for the peer review of images and reports to gain assurance that scan procedures were carried out in line with national guidelines and the provider’s policies.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff gained consent from patients for their care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. We observed staff seeking consent before providing care or treatment. Following the scan, consent was scanned into the electronic record.

The service had a consent policy which was up-to-date. Staff received training in consent. Records showed most staff were up-to-date with consent training.

Patients were provided information explaining the scan prior to their appointment. Patients we spoke with confirmed they had completed a safety questionnaire and had given their consent for the procedure they had attended for.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and knew where to access the current policies. Records showed most staff had completed this training. Staff could describe how to access the policy on Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care.

Chaperones were provided if requested. Staff understood their responsibilities when acting as a chaperone.