South Bristol NHS Community Hospital

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 people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked people’s privacy and dignity was respected; they understood their care and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment this stayed the same.

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.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues with kindness and respect.

We saw staff took the time to interact with people who used the service in a respectful and considerate way and gave them all the time they needed to understand information provided. We saw staff allowing patients to sit quietly, uninterrupted, to read through information and complete questionnaires required for MRI scans.

There was a visible and values driven culture of person-centred and non‑discriminatory care. Staff demonstrated cultural sensitivity and proactively challenged inequity, creating an environment where people felt respected, understood and safe. This was reflected in feedback we received on site from patients.

Staff ensured when intimate personal care and support was given, people were offered the option of a chaperone. Staff ensured, where possible, chaperones were the same gender as the patient.

People were able to speak to the receptionist or radiographer without being overheard and there were plenty of additional rooms and space where sensitive conversations could be held if needed or requested. This included if a patient became distressed.

The department saw children from the urgent treatment centre and some outpatient clinics. Staff explained children over the age of 12 were invited into the examination room on their own so they could speak to staff without a parent present. This was helpful where staff needed to enquire about the possibility of pregnancy before any imaging.

Staff responded in a compassionate, timely, and appropriate way when people experienced physical pain, discomfort or emotional distress. We saw staff comfort patient prior to, and after scans.

Staff were compassionate and sensitive in their response to patients who might be frightened, confused or phobic about medical procedures or any aspect of their care. Patients we spoke with told us they felt things were explained in a way they understood.

People were given timely support and information to cope emotionally with their care, treatment or condition. They were advised how to find other support services, such as linking in with cancer support services, based at the hospital site.

Staff were motivated and committed to delivering care, which was kind, respectful and protective of people’s dignity. Staff went the extra mile and established genuine connections with the people they cared for. Patients told us they had been treated with compassion.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of people and this information was recorded and shared as needed. For example, use of pronouns and preferred names was some of the information recorded.

Staff members displayed understanding and a non-judgemental attitude towards (or when talking about) patients who had mental health, learning disabilities, autism or dementia diagnoses. Staff shared their own experience of loved ones living with some of these conditions which they told us helped them shape how they spoke to people in similar circumstances.

The service utilised patient surveys, and questions were sufficiently open ended to allow people to express themselves. A selection of feedback provided showed patients were very happy with their care. For example, patients described the service as “Efficient, friendly and quick”, “Everything was excellent” and “Everything was explained and clear with empathy and kindness”.

We scored the service as 3. 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. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff identified and met the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss using a variety of pictorial or written aides. Services were delivered, made accessible and coordinated to take account of the needs of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Staff made reasonable adjustments so people with a disability could access and use services on an equal basis to others.

Staff worked across services to coordinate people's involvement with families and carers and arrange appointments for the same day if possible.

Staff communicated with people, so they understood their care, treatment and condition and any advice given. Easy read leaflets were available in all areas we visited and there were leaflets in other languages. Patients were clear and staff communicated with them in a way they understood.

Staff sought accessible ways to communicate with people including the use of face-to-face translation, or telephone translation, where a patients’ first language was not English.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

People were empowered and supported, where necessary, to use and link with support networks and advocacy and patients were signposted to various support groups for long covid, cancer and some carers networks.

Staff made sure people who used services and those close to them were able to find further information or ask questions about their care and treatment.

Appointments were appropriately timed and staff told us they felt they had time to speak with patients and answer any questions. All patients received written information about where they would get their results and what to do if they had any questions or concerns following their examination. Staff had access to communication aids to help patients.

Imaging and treatment options were discussed with people, and they were encouraged to be part of the decision-making process.

The bookings team called all patients in advance of their scan to obtain as much essential information as possible to ensure everything a patient needed was available for their scan. This included coordination with GPs for any medication such as pain relief, which might be needed to help a patient tolerate a scan.

Support with transport was available to service users with mobility issues, and the service had issued a comprehensive guide to public transport links to the site, including free onsite parking.

Patients told us they felt listened to, respected and had their views considered.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

Following their tests, service users understood how and when they would receive their test results and had received copies of letters sent between the hospital and their GP. Service users described knowing who to contact if they were worried about anything following their scan or procedure.

In areas where ethnic minority groups formed a significant proportion of the local population, there were processes to aid translation, both verbal and written.

Where people’s needs and choices were not being met, this was identified but not always used to inform how services were improved and developed. For example, we saw the service collected feedback from patients, but there was little evidence of any changes made as a result of this feedback.

There were multiple quiet areas or examination rooms where patients could wait if they found busy environments distressing. However, the whole service was calm and composed which patients and staff described as wonderful. Where there were delays, this was clearly communicated on white boards in the main patient waiting area.

Appointments were only cancelled or delayed when necessary and this was explained to people. Those cancelled were supported to access care and treatment again as soon as possible. For example, across all Bristol locations, did not attend (DNA) rates ranged from 4.68% to 5.53% between May 2025 and April. 2026. For the same period, across all hospital sites, between 2.29% and 4.36% of appointments were cancelled by the hospitals. Both figures were in line with national averages.

The service monitored waiting times for diagnostic through a monthly return (DM01) which showed there were 4006 patients waiting for MRI, 2405 patients waiting for CT and 5092 patients waiting for non-obstetric ultrasound. In MRI, 58 patients had waited over 13 weeks. In CT, 1 patient had waited over 13 weeks and in ultrasound, 91 patients had waited over 13 weeks. This compared well with other similar services. DM01 data is a national report on the 15 most common diagnostic tests, including CT and MRI.

The service monitored performance against the 6-week standard. In March 2026, across all sites, 90.25% of patients had been seen in 6 weeks or less. The service ensured it met local and national Key Performance Indicators for report turnaround times and reported on them to the host NHS trusts it provided services for. Data for CT showed 96.3% of patients were scanned and reported within 28 days. In MRI, 80.3% of patents were scanned and reported within 28 days, and in ultrasound, 99.4% of patients were scanned and reported within 28 days.

Service users told us they were offered a choice of appointments and there were some same day appointments available if needed for urgent scans.

Good quality diagnostic images and reports were available to cancer multi-disciplinary teams in a timely way.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

There was a monthly staff meeting for staff who worked at the site. We reviewed meeting minutes, which showed all modalities undertook regular team meetings. In CT and plain film, we saw clear, up to date action logs.

There were cooperative, supportive and appreciative relationships among staff. Staff and teams worked collaboratively, shared responsibility and resolved conflict quickly and constructively. All staffing groups were treated with respect and supported, including smaller more remote teams.

Staff were actively engaged, and their views were reflected in the planning and delivery of services and in shaping the culture.

The service undertook an annual staff survey in 2025. The survey identified areas for improvement including concerns about appraisals and development opportunities, demands on work time and a feeling of being undervalued. Leaders developed an action plan-based on the findings which we saw had been updated, but there were no dates or targets for actions to be completed.

Staff did not work alone. In all areas we visited, staff worked as a team. Staff felt the work booked for each scanner was appropriate and allowed time to carry out safety checks necessary before scanning. Staff and patients did not feel rushed.