- NHS hospital
South Bristol NHS Community Hospital
Assessment report published 18 September 2026
Contents
Ratings - Diagnostic imaging
Our view of the service
We carried out an unannounced, comprehensive two-day assessment on 13 and 14 May 2026.
We carried out the assessment as the provider had not been inspected under our new methodology. The service was last inspected in 2014 where the service was rated Good in all key questions across all assessment service groups.
Safe:
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and most risks were mitigated. There were enough staff and most had the right skills, qualifications and experience. However, not all staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Out of date medicines were not well managed and some local rules were missing key safety information, however, work had already begun to strengthen processes around this. There was also poor compliance with paediatric resuscitation training although evidence supplied post assessment showed clear plans to address this.
Effective:
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions and could recognise where they did not have capacity. However, there were some gaps in quality assurance records for some equipment.
Caring:
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. However there as little evidence of actions taken as a result of feedback and online information was out of date.
Responsive:
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Well-led:
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. However, there were some gaps in overarching governance such as in the management of out-of-date equipment and medicines, local rules, online information and quality assurance records. Evidence provided after the assessment showed work on these issues had begun.
People's experience of this service
Patients and any family or carers with them were all positive about the staff treating them with warmth and kindness and providing effective care and treatment. They said they were seen quickly when they arrived and guided to the correct waiting area by polite reception staff.
Records showed they received their imaging promptly, and they felt staff were on hand if they needed them for help or support. People said they did not feel anxious about raising concerns.
We spoke with 8 patients and found all were positive about their experiences at the hospital. All patients we spoke with told us they received their appointments promptly with clear instructions for any preparation required. Patients also told us they were kept informed of any delays. They reported the environment was spacious and pleasant, with ample parking, although some comment cards reported by the service showed patients sometimes felt disabled parking was situated too far from the main doors.