Nuffield Health Bristol Hospital - The Chesterfield

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

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways which met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated the combined outpatients and diagnostic imaging key question of responsive as good. At this assessment we have rated responsive for diagnostic imaging as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. However, information was not always kept secure.

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 evidence showed a good standard. 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 could access support from external interpretation services when required. Staff told us they did not have to use interpretation services often, but they knew how to access support.

Both the internal and external mobile scanners were accessible by wheelchair and step-free access was provided. The reception area and the waiting area had a seating area and toilet facilities for patients and visitors. There was a baby changing and feeding room available.

Staff discussed people’s individual clinical and personal needs with them prior to commencing scans. Staff wore name badges and could be clearly identified.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

At the time of our assessment the service ran different operating hours depending on the modality. MRI was available from 7.30am to 7.15pm Monday to Friday, and 8.30am to 4pm on Saturday; CT was available from 9am to 5pm, for 2 days a week; X-ray was available from 8am to 7.15pm, Monday to Friday. The service was available using an on-call rota out of hours. The service had plans to increase the opening hours to meet increased demand.

The service had a process to book patient’s appointments. The process did not proactively assess patients’ individual needs. Staff relied on patients informing them of their needs when they turned up for a diagnostic image. However, staff had processes to support people to attend their appointments. We observed staff responding to patients and supporting them to have images taken.

There were processes to see patients requiring urgent scans. There was an out-of-hours service provided by staff that were on call. The service reserved appointment slots for urgent scans.

The hospital held daily huddles at the start of each day to plan care, discuss risks and issues. Staff who were unable to attend received an email with meeting notes.

Staff ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements. There were up-to-date policies and procedures to manage patients who did not attend appointments. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, the service had a did not attend rate of less than 0.7% of booked appointments. The service introduced a system in ultrasound to ensure patients still required the appointment and were prepared to attend.

The service had access to a third-party to provide reports on some images. There were systems and processes to monitor performance in reporting to agreed timescales which included urgent scans and unexpected findings.

People we spoke with did not experience any delays or issues with their scan images or reports. Patients told us access to the service was fast and at a time they wanted.

A patient’s image or reports were sent to the referrer to review and provide the results. All patient’s we spoke with were aware of the process and told us they were well informed.

The evidence showed some shortfalls in standards. Patient information was not always kept secure. However, the service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patient records were not always kept secure. During our assessment we found a set of patient test results in an area that was not secure and visible to unauthorised people. After our onsite assessment the service told us they had removed and secured the information.

During our assessment, we observed computers being locked when not in use. Rooms were lockable and kept secure when not in use. There were secure processes to manage confidential waste.

A range of information was available to patients. Staff told us they could arrange for information to be provided in alternative languages. Information was available on the services website. This included an explanation of what an image or scan involves, how to prepare and what to expect during the appointment.

Costs and the services terms and conditions were listed on their website. Most patients were made aware of the costs of any diagnostic and screening procedure. Staff told us they would inform people of the imaging cost prior to a person attending if the scan was arranged at short notice. However, 1 patient who was privately paying told us they had not been told the cost before the scan.

Scan images were held on electronic systems and sent to the referrer securely. Staff received training in cyber security. Records showed most staff had completed this training.

In the 12 months prior to our assessment there were 2 data breaches reported in the service. The incidents were low level and not reportable to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), who is the UK’s independent regulator set to uphold information rights. The service reviewed incidents and took action to prevent reoccurrence.

The hospital displayed its previous CQC ratings in the hospital and on the provider’s website.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.

People could raise any concerns or issues in a range of accessible ways. For example, patient feedback forms, and electronic methods to collect feedback. The service displayed adverts across the department showing people how to feedback experiences. The service also had posters to prompt people to share their experience of care with the CQC.

The hospital had a patient satisfaction survey to understand the views of people using the service. In the reporting period October to December 2025, the survey showed patients scored the hospital 4.6 out of 5 for both the booking and overall experience of the service.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement. Complaints and concerns across the hospital were discussed in monthly clinical governance meetings. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, there were 8 complaints. The service investigated and resolved these complaints with the patient and identified learning to make improvements.

Staff were aware of the complaints process and knew how to support people to make a complaint.

Patients could take any unresolved complaints to a third-party organisation or to the parliamentary ombudsman (if care was NHS funded).

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients could access the service through several routes, including GP referral, private medical insurance, self-pay or through their NHS hospital. Images involving the use of ionising radiation were accepted from approved referrers.

The service monitored waiting times for each type of image or scan. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, the average wait for x-ray was 3 days. MRI average wait was 17days but had reduced to 10 days in the 3 months prior to our assessment. Ultrasound had an average wait of 23 days. CT imaging services were paused from March 2026 due to a planned installation of a new CT scanner. Prior to the pause, there was an average wait of 13 days between June 2025 and February 2026. During our assessment patients did not raise any concerns about the length of time they were waiting for their appointment. Managers told us investment in new equipment would improve performance. The ultrasound service was radiologist led with limited capacity; there were plans to increase capacity to reduce waiting times.

The service monitored the number of appointments that were not attended. The service had a target to keep the number of appointments not attended under 5%. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, the service was consistently achieving the target with 0.7% of total appointments not attended over the period for all modalities.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example patients who had mobility problems. Staff told us how they worked with colleagues in the hospital to support patients to attend their diagnostic appointments.

The hospital had a hearing loop (sound system for use by people with hearing aids) at the main reception.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). This training was underpinned by the Nuffield Health’s EDI policy which outlined the policy statement of the organisation for a fair and equitable workplace.

The provider’s policies had a process to check if it discriminated against protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010. Each policy had an equality and diversity declaration to show the policy had been reviewed.

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 and complaints, and this did not identify adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics.

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 dementia and disability care.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The nature of diagnostic procedures provided by the service meant most people attended the service once, unless multiple scans were requested as part of their assessment. During our assessment, we saw staff making arrangements to reduce the need for patients to attend multiple times. However, a patient told us they were not able to have all the imaging they needed at one time, but they had been informed by staff that this was due to the replacement of equipment.

Patients were provided with information about how they would receive results. The referrer was responsible for any ongoing care and treatment needs.