South Bristol NHS Community 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

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

On our previous inspection, we rated responsive as good. At this inspection this has stayed the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

We scored the service as 3. 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 worked to coordinate people's involvement with families and carers, particularly for those with long-term conditions such as patients living with cancer, who required regular imaging to help plan and monitor treatment.

Where possible, the service scheduled several investigations together, especially in plain film imaging.

Services provided reflected the needs of the population served and they ensured flexibility, choice and continuity of care, however we did not see evidence patient feedback contributed to improvements.

Staff communicated with people, so they understood their care, treatment and condition and any advice given using easy read leaflets, and face to face translation services if needed. Staff regularly used language line for interpretation.

Staff supported people to access additional services such as advocacy and support groups to improve their choices of care.

The service identified and met the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. Leaders ensured services were delivered and made accessible to take account of the needs of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

People’s carers, advocates and representatives including family members and friends, were identified, welcomed, and treated as important partners in the delivery of their care. Patients were always given the option of having a carer or loved one accompany them as long as this complied with radiation safety protection measures.

We scored the service as 3. 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

Care and treatment were co-ordinated and responsive and delivered in a way that met patients’ assessed needs.

Managers reviewed the demands of patients using the service and made arrangements to meet changes in demand. We saw open discussions with stakeholders around utilisation of appointment times for CT patients. The service only saw patient who had previously had contrast injections with no adverse side effects. Leaders also explained they were very clear about expectations for booking those patients as the capacity utilisation would only work if patients were grouped together to ensure smooth throughput.

People with mental health, learning disability, autism or dementia needs could get extra support when they attended for their examinations or procedures. Staff explained they could contact the learning disabilities team or dementia link nurses for advice in advance of patients attending.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff had access to communication aids to help patients become partners in their care and treatment. Staff used patients’ preferred methods of communication, such as letters or phone calls. Resources such as Braille and translation services were also readily available.

Staff in CT and MRI ensured people had all the necessary advice and written information they needed for some specialist types of scans. However, online information was out of date, and we could not see anything about CT or MRI on the hospital website.

Staff provided people who used services with information leaflets and written information in their chosen language, to explain their diagnostic test both before and after their appointment. Patients had access to information about making complaints.

We scored the service as 3. 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. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People’s views and experiences were gathered but not always acted on to shape and improve the services and culture, which included people in a range of equality groups. People who used services, those close to them and their representatives were engaged and the service had links with local carer networks.

The service encouraged challenge from people who used services, the public and stakeholders. This was seen as a vital way of holding the service to account. Patient stories featured in board meetings and staff bulletins.

Staff were engaged so their views were reflected in the planning and delivery of services and in shaping the culture. Patient surveys were in use, and questions were sufficiently open ended to allow people to express themselves. Feedback cards were used to identify any themes and trends, and a quarterly patient experience report was used to feedback overall themes to teams.

There were very positive and collaborative relationships with external partners to build a shared understanding of challenges within the system. This also included understanding the needs of the relevant population, and to deliver services to meet those needs. For example, the service worked with MRI manufacturers to improve image quality whilst reducing scan time for some types of stroke and musculoskeletal patients.

People were supported if they needed to complain, and staff viewed complaints as valuable feedback and opportunities to learn and improve. There was support available to assist patients with sensory loss or communication difficulties to make complaints. There had been 5 complaints made about the service at South Bristol Community Hospital between January 2026 and May 2026. Managers kept a detailed tracker of each complaint, which showed expected timeframes and what actions had been taken and by whom. No complaints had been escalated to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Services provided reflected the needs of the population served and they ensured flexibility, choice and continuity of care. The service was proactive in ensuring they provided access for all patients where they could. When patients were referred for any imaging at the South Bristol Community Hospital, a central bookings team checked and booked all appointments.

There was information available about how patients could access the service using public transport and while there was free parking on site, there was also some fee-paying parking next to the hospital

People told us they could access care and treatment at a time to suit them.

Services ran on time and people were kept informed if there was any disruption.

Information was provided to service users in accessible formats before appointments, including contact details, map and directions, and information about any tests including any preparation.

The service did not have hearing loop for those patients with hearing impairment or loss, but sign language or other translators could be arranged, either in person or by telephone in the case of spoken languages.

Information was given to patients verbally and in writing for reference when at home, also with the help of a translator onsite if needed.

Care and treatment were cancelled or delayed only where necessary. For example, data showed between May 2025 and April 2026, across all hospital sites, between 2.29% and 4.36% of appointments were cancelled by the hospitals. This was in line with national averages.

We scored the service as 3. 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 within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The service identified and addressed discrimination and inequality which could disadvantage different groups of people using their services. Staff fostered a culture where issues were addressed transparently.

Staff understood there were sensitivities needed in their approach to inclusive pregnancy checking and had worked with external partners and providers to gain permission to retain information about gender assigned at birth. This meant once an inclusive pregnancy check had taken place, those patients assigned male gender at birth, did not need to be asked again for any future imaging.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

The service communicated its values and minimum standards of care people could expect to receive. Managers took steps to include all patients and were engaging with a range of groups in the community. This included minority communities such as transgender groups in respect of inclusive pregnancy checking.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Staff assessed patients’ needs and communicated this with health professionals using booking forms and patient records. These included choices patients had made about how they would like to be treated. For example, patients’ choice about resuscitation if they became very unwell. Test results were provided in a timely way for decisions about ongoing care and staff provided information about support groups.

Patients felt they understood information staff provided and had time to consider their options.