South Bristol NHS Community Hospital

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

At our last assessment this key question was not rated. At this assessment we rated it as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

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

Support with transport was available to service users with mobility issues, including hospital transport. Staff told us it could be challenging for patients who required transport and were booked on a later list as they could be in the department past closing time whilst waiting for transport. However, there were processes to keep patients safe if transport was delayed.

The service took account of individual needs of people with mental health conditions. The service had mental health first aiders accessible to staff but could also signpost patients to mental health support services in the NHS.

People were supported during referral, transfer between services and following their examinations or procedures. There were links with local carer’s networks and cancer charities, and staff could signpost people for ongoing support. All patients received information and follow up advice in a format or language they could understand.

Staff worked across services to coordinate people's care and treatment. In all modalities, imaging staff explained, if they saw patients had multiple examinations booked, they would strive to carry them out at the same time to save the patient from returning for a second visit. This also helped optimise waiting lists.

The service did not utilise online booking process which meant some patients did not have a choice in which hospital they attended for their scans. Two patients we spoke with told us they were just sent the appointment, although there were instructions within the letter on what to do if they could not make the appointment.

Patient’s pain was assessed and managed, particularly for those where they had difficulties in communicating. Patients were advised to tell staff if they felt any pain during MRI scans and during other procedures such as joint injections. Staff had access to pain scales such as Baker Wong and Abbey to help communicate with patient with communication barriers. Managers had also identified free resources in the form of picture books to help support patients whose first language might not be English or who had communication barriers.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

People received a range of care and treatment options based on substantiated evidence and were responsive to their individual needs, preferences and aspirations.

Staff assessed patient’s physical, mental health and social needs, and their care was delivered in line with legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Staff identified vulnerable patients, such as diabetic patients, or frail patients requiring fasting or drinking before treatment. Risks to these patients were mitigated through clear communication about preparation for scans and making sure vulnerable patients were booked at an appropriate time.

Staff monitored, and medical physics teams audited, radiation doses to ensure they were kept as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Diagnostic referral levels (DRLs) had been established for all procedures undertaken. A DRL is the expected dose for a given examination.

By using a clinical governance group, the service ensured it identified and implemented relevant best practice and guidance. The service audited their practice locally and identified action points.

The service participated in national benchmarking clinical audits and had a schedule planned for each quarter of 2026/27. For example, the service had planned to re -audit CT head scans for exclusion of patient’s eye lens in quarter 2 of 2026.

All necessary staff, including those in different teams, services and organisations, were involved in assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment. There were multiple examples of radiologist multidisciplinary team (MDT) working involving diagnostic imaging provided as an essential and integral part of patients’ pathway.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Relevant teams, services and organisations were involved in coordinating people’s care. Staff identified vulnerable patients or those who needed additional support and adjusted where possible. This meant their appointments were undertaken at an appropriate time of day and when support was available, such as transport.

MDT meetings were planned and held with representatives of all teams involved in a patient’s treatment pathway, including any external providers or NHS trusts. These meetings were recorded as contemporaneous notes.

Radiologists held monthly radiology events and learning meetings (REALMS) which could be attended in person or remotely. Meetings were also recorded to ensure all radiologists had the opportunity to hear discussions about interesting and unusual cases.

Radiologists attended MDT meetings and suitable preparation time was included as part of their job planning.

The service had established links with mental health, learning disability and dementia link nurses for advice and guidance.

Diagnostic test results were available to support timely MDT decisions on cancer care and helped the local trust achieve its national cancer waiting times and standards. Report turnaround times were monitored and acted on immediately if there were any backlogs emerging through weekly meetings of reporting radiographers.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

People who used services felt supported to manage their own health, care and wellbeing and to maximise their independence. For example, patients told us they were very happy with the amount and level of information they received after their scans. They were confident they knew what to do if they had a problem and knew how they would get their results. There were well established links with local carer’s networks and staff could direct patients to the local hospital to access additional support to manage their condition such as cancer support groups.

People were told what to do if they needed to seek further help if their condition deteriorated after receiving care or treatment in the diagnostic imaging department, such as after receiving contrast, including delayed reactions.

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

Audit processes monitored patient outcomes and compliance with best practice guidelines. Approaches to monitor and improve people’s outcomes were rigorous and inclusive. Radiologists used the electronic reporting system to flag urgent images and for administrative staff to share information with referrers. Diagnostic referral levels were audited annually to ensure patients received radiation doses as low as reasonably practicable which was overseen by the dose optimisation committee as part of the radiation protection committee. However, the dose reference levels were overdue review and awaiting update at the time of our assessment.

Staff participated in relevant quality improvement initiatives, such as local and national clinical audits, benchmarking, approved accreditation schemes, peer review, research and trials. All relevant staff were involved in activities to monitor and use information to improve outcomes. For example, the service (across all Bristol hospitals and locations) met the 10% double reporting target as set out by the Royal College of Radiologists. Double reporting in radiology services is the process of having an x-ray or scan interpreted by two independent radiologists. Data showed between April 2025 and March 2026, the service double reported on 19.45% of all reports.

Staff worked proactively to enable equally good outcomes for all by recognising barriers  preventing  this. They acted on information by taking purposeful steps to listen and respond to people’s experiences. They allocated resources and embedded continuous learning and innovation to reduce inequalities in outcomes. For example, staff had sought specialist advice from paediatric radiographers to help support imaging of children from some outpatient clinics and the urgent treatment centre.

The service held regular audit meetings to learn, feedback and monitor progress of actions. For example, the service held an overarching audit schedule which clearly showed progress against each expected audit. No audits were out of date at the time of our assessment.

We scored the service as 3. 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 understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance. Staff monitored the process for seeking consent and reviewed it to ensure it met legal requirements and followed relevant national guidance. We saw staff explain procedures well to patients. Gillick competence was understood in all areas who saw children. Children had autonomy to accept or refuse imaging. Patients under the age of 18 were also given time away from parents/guardians to ask questions, especially around pregnancy.

Staff were trained and understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance. Training data showed 100 % compliance across all staff groups.

Staff discussed imaging and treatment options with people and encouraged to be part of the decision-making process. For example, some scans such as MRI required a degree of independence to be able to lay still to tolerate the whole scan. Staff showed patients what was required of them before any imaging was undertaken, including if they were concerned about claustrophobia.

Managers told us they monitored consent processes to ensure they met legal requirements and followed relevant national guidance. However, we requested audit data to support this, which was not submitted and did not feature on any audits schedule.

Staff explained if they had any concerns about people’s possible lack of mental capacity, they escalated them to the radiologist on duty for advice or the referrer.

Staff were aware of do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) orders when patients came to department for procedures. Where appropriate, patient information was transported with patients when attending for a scan or procedure. The service generally saw lower risk, mobile patients where possible. However, staff were able to access patients’ full electronic clinical record if needed.