Whipps Cross University Hospital

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs and that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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 communicated with people so that they understood their care, treatment and condition and any advice given using easy read leaflets, and translation services if needed. The service had access to an interpreting service for patients whose first language was not English and sign language interpreters if needed.

Staff told us they recognised that complaints were opportunities for learning and improving care for patients. Staff in ultrasound provided an example of how learning from a complaint was shared with the team to ensure that patient dignity was always maintained. We saw evidence that complaints were used to improve care and treatment where possible. Learning from complaints was shared across the service via monthly staff meetings, monthly governance meetings, and daily staff huddles.

The service made reasonable adjustments where necessary such as extending the length of appointments for patients. Staff were focused on delivering patient centred care and respected the individual needs of each person. Patients were treated as individuals with treatment and care being offered in a flexible way and tailored to meet their needs. Staff could play music, provide eye masks and offer a mirror so patients who felt anxious or claustrophobic could see out of the MRI scanner. Most staff we spoke with could explain the additional support available for people with learning disabilities and autism. They told us they had links with learning disability and autism nurses and gave an example of them attending appointments with patients to support continuity in their care. However, compliance with Oliver McGowan training on learning disability and autism was variable and was between 66.7% in administrative and clerical staff and 94.7% among radiology medical staff.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Most information given to patients or their relatives across the service was verbal. Patients we spoke with told us they generally felt well informed about their appointments, and some had received leaflets with their appointment letters. We observed staff keeping patients informed about delays and waiting times. Staff told us that there were various ways in which they could provide information in a way people could understand. This included being able to provide interpretation for people who did not speak English as a first language. They were also able to obtain support for people who were d/Deaf and used British Sign Language. However, we observed a patient who did not have access to an interpreter was unable to communicate with staff and appeared confused. Although, staff told us they could contact an interpreter for them when they saw the radiographer.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

The A&E CT scanner had an out of hours service and was operational 24 hours per day, seven days a week for emergencies. A&E X ray operated 24 hours a day seven days a week for emergencies also. There was a walk in X-ray service for outpatients. Leaders told us of plans to extend both CT and MRI to 7-day services in conjunction with a workforce transformation. Staff told us that not having 24/7 MRI provision made it difficult to provide an effective cauda equina syndrome service. National guidance states that patients with suspected cauda equina syndrome should receive an emergency MRI scan within 4 hours of referral. However, the current provision meant that patients requiring MRIs out of hours had to be transferred to another hospital location in the trust. We saw that this was identified on the service risk register.

Patients could generally access the service in a timely way. The percentage of patients waiting over six weeks for diagnostic tests was below (better than) the England average. Data we reviewed showed in many areas performance exceeded 99% of patients receiving their diagnostic test within 6 weeks of referral. However, data from June 2025 showed that performance was 76.3% in MRI which was attributed to the lack of capacity in the modality. Staff and leaders told us of increasing demand across many areas of the service, and there was not enough capacity to meet demand. This impacted on the performance of the diagnostic imaging services, the ability to be responsive to patients and consistently meet their needs in a timely way. The Imaging Department had implemented a daily operational structure and huddles to closely monitor and manage performance across all modalities. This ensured patients who were at risk of breaching the 6-week diagnostic waiting time standard were identified and diagnostic appointments were scheduled within target timelines. Patients on cancer waiting pathways and patients who had been waiting for long periods were highlighted as part of this process. Weekly access meetings were held to support this and to discuss escalations.

Staff told us of ongoing work to improve capacity and reduce the image reporting backlog. This included working with community diagnostic centres, utilising imaging equipment in other departments, and operating lists on weekends. The service used teleradiology services to meet reporting demands and we were told images still waiting to be reported after 15 days were given to them. There were 4 reporting radiographers who reported on X-ray peripheral images. Leaders also told us there was good uptake from radiologists performing bank shifts all of which was in place to reduce reporting backlogs. Data we reviewed showed that between January 2025 and May 2025 report turnaround time was approximately 10 days on average.

The did not attend (DNA) rates were relatively low. Staff told us they had procedures in the event of patients not attending for appointments. A text reminder service was used to help improve attendance and the scheduling team made efforts to book vulnerable patients who missed appointments in again, in accordance with departmental process and the trust Access Policy.

Patients provided information about how patients could access the hospital using public transport as there was limited parking available and patients commented on the difficulties they experienced with parking.

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.