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

At this assessment we rated the key question as good. 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.

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 in ways that met their individual needs and helped them to understand their care, treatment, conditions, and any advice given. Information was available in easy read formats, and staff used professional interpreting and translation services where required, including sign language interpreters. This supported people to be involved in decisions about their care and ensured communication barriers were appropriately addressed.

Staff understood the importance of listening to feedback and treated complaints as opportunities to learn and improve patient experience. Staff in X-Ray shared an example where learning from a complaint had been used to reinforce the importance of maintaining patient dignity. We saw evidence that learning from complaints led to improvements in care and treatment where appropriate. Learning was shared with staff through a range of formal and informal mechanisms, including daily huddles, monthly staff meetings, monthly governance meetings and departmental newsletters. This demonstrated a responsive approach to improving care based on patient feedback.

The service made reasonable adjustments to meet people’s individual needs. This included extending appointment times when required and offering flexible, tailored approaches to care. Staff were focused on delivering person‑centred care and consistently treated people as individuals. For example, staff were able to play music during MRI scans to help people who felt anxious or claustrophobic to feel more comfortable. All staff were able to explain the additional support available for people with a learning disability or autistic people. Compliance with Oliver McGowan level 1 mandatory training was high, at 93.3% for radiology medical staff and 100% for nuclear medicine staff. This supported staff to understand and respond appropriately to people’s individual needs. Data provided by the trust also showed they had exceeded NHS England’s target for completion of each tier of Oliver McGowan training.

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.

The service delivered care that was well coordinated and joined up with other services. The service worked effectively with referring clinicians, clinical teams and other departments to ensure people experienced coordinated and timely diagnostic care. Referral information was reviewed appropriately to support safe and efficient pathways, and results were shared promptly to support continuity of care. This helped ensure people moved smoothly between services without unnecessary delay.

Leaders and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of how the diagnostic imaging service fitted within local pathways and the wider NHS system. The service engaged with system partners to support effective patient flow and continuity, including escalation processes when capacity pressures affected access or timeliness.

The service adapted care delivery to meet individual needs, including making reasonable adjustments and prioritising urgent or time‑critical diagnostics where required. This supported continuity of care and timely onward treatment. The approach reflected an understanding of the diverse needs of the local population.

Systems were in place to ensure accurate information followed people through their diagnostic pathway. Diagnostic reports were provided in a timely manner and shared securely with referring clinicians, supporting informed decision‑making and reducing the risk of delays in treatment.

The service considered the needs of people at greater risk of a poorer experience, including people with protected characteristics. Pathways and communication processes were adapted where needed to support equitable access and continuity of diagnostic care.

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

People were given appropriate information before, during and after their diagnostic or screening appointment. Information was given to patients explaining what would happen, how to prepare, what the procedure involved, and how results would be communicated. This supported people to understand their care and reduced any anxiety they might have. Information was provided at the right time to support informed decision making. We observed staff explaining procedures clearly and responding to questions appropriately. Patient feedback confirming information was clear, easy to understand and provided in good time. Friends and family test survey results showed people knew what to expect from their diagnostic imaging or screening appointment and how and when they were likely to receive their results.

The service identified and recorded people’s individual information and communication needs and took action to ensure these were met. Information was available in accessible formats, including easy read and alternative languages were required. Interpreting and translation services, including language line were used to support people who did not speak English fluently. This approach was in line with the accessible information standard and supported equitable access to diagnostic services. We observed staff explaining procedures clearly and responding to questions appropriately. We saw use of interpreters or accessible information on checking in screens in the receptions of the diagnostic imaging departments.

Staff took time to explain diagnostic procedures in plain English and checked patient’s understanding before they proceeded. Where appropriate, staff provided reassurance and responded to any questions that patients or their families had. People were told how and when they would receive their results and who to contact if they had any concerns. We saw in records we reviewed that communication needs were identified and flagged. This supported a positive and responsive experience of care.

Information explaining how to provide feedback, raise concerns or make a complaint was available and accessible throughout the service. We saw posters in all areas detailing this information. Staff encouraged people to share their views and explained how feedback would be used to improve services. This helped people feel listened to and informed about how to raise concerns.

The service handled people’s information in line with data protection requirements. People were told how their personal information and diagnostic results would be shared with relevant healthcare professionals to support their ongoing care and treatment. This supported continuity of care while respecting people’s rights and choices.

Whilst the service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, they were not meeting their own complaints response targets. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service sought feedback from people using diagnostic and screening services through a range of accessible methods, including the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT), local patient satisfaction surveys, and informal feedback following imaging appointments. FFT results for the previous 12 months showed that over 90% of patients would recommend the service. Information explaining how people could provide feedback or raise concerns was displayed clearly within imaging departments, and people told inspectors they understood how to share their views. Staff encouraged feedback at the point of care and routinely checked people’s comfort, understanding, and experience during and after imaging procedures.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment. They explained imaging procedures clearly, including what would happen during the scan, why it was required and what people could expect afterwards. People were given time to ask questions, and staff responded in a way that was easy to understand. Where appropriate, people were offered choices about appointments and adjustments, including positioning, scanning pace, and additional reassurance to support people who experienced anxiety, claustrophobia or physical discomfort.

The service had arrangements in place for managing concerns and complaints, which were consistent with NHS complaints standards. Staff understood how to recognise and escalate concerns and were confident in discussing feedback with people in a respectful and compassionate way. Complaints and negative feedback were treated as opportunities to learn and improve the service. We reviewed the 64 complaints that were partly or completely related to radiology for Queen Elizabeth Hospital during the 12 months preceding the assessment. The service consistently did not meet the requirements for complaints responses and resolutions as laid out in the Trust’s complaints policy. Themes and trends were reviewed through governance processes and actions were implemented to address identified issues. Themes were related to appointment times, communication and attitude of staff. Learning from complaints and feedback was shared with staff through team meetings, governance forums and local communication channels including the departmental newsletter.

Staff worked with carers and advocates where appropriate and acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act when people required support to be involved in decisions.

The service tried to ensure the majority of people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service provided CT scanning and x-rays for the hospital’s emergency department’s (ED) out of hours service and was operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for emergencies. There was a walk-in x-ray service for outpatients. The service leaders told us of plans to extend both CT and MRI to 7-day services in conjunction with 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 Trust does provide MRI for suspected cauda equina between 8am-8pm, 7 days a week. After 8pm suspected cauda equina cases would be transferred to the local tertiary centre. DEXA scans are provided Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm.

Patients could generally access the service in a timely way. The percentage of patients waiting over 6 weeks for diagnostic tests was below (better than) the England average. Data we reviewed showed in many areas performance exceeded 90% of patients receiving their diagnostic test within 6 weeks of referral. Staff and leaders told us of increasing demand across many areas of the service, and it was a struggle to meet the demand at times. 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 daily 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 where possible. Patients on cancer pathways and patients who had been waiting for long periods were highlighted as part of this process.

Staff told us of ongoing work to improve capacity. This included working with local community diagnostic centres, writing business cases for capital funding to purchase an additional MRI scanner, and undertaking lists on weekends. The service used teleradiology services to meet reporting demands. Leaders also informed us that radiologists employed by the service often undertook voluntary bank shifts as part of a plan to reduce reporting backlogs. The service provided data regarding reporting turnaround times; which demonstrated they were meeting the NHS England diagnostic imaging reporting turnaround times targets for the vast majority of the modalities for the 4 months from December 2025 to March 2026.

The ‘did not attend’ (DNA) rates for patients were relatively low, equating to 4.33% of scans completed in the 12 months from February 2025 to January 2026. 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 re-book vulnerable patients who missed appointments, in accordance with departmental process and the trust Access Policy.

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.

The service actively sought to understand whether people were at risk of experiencing inequality in their access to, experience of or outcomes from diagnostic and screening services. Staff used information gathered at referral, booking and pre‑procedure stages to identify people who may require additional support, including people with protected characteristics, people with disabilities, people with learning disabilities, people with sensory impairment and people experiencing health inclusion needs. This information was used to tailor care and support so that people received equitable experiences and outcomes.

Staff demonstrated awareness of groups who could be at increased risk of poorer experiences or outcomes and described how they adjusted care in response. Reasonable adjustments were made to imaging pathways, including extended appointment times, use of interpreters, alternative communication formats and support from carers or advocates where appropriate.

The service monitored feedback and experience data to identify any variation in experiences across different population groups. Leaders and staff reviewed this information through governance processes to understand whether inequalities were present and to determine whether additional actions were required. Where people raised concerns about discrimination or unfair treatment, staff understood how to respond, escalate concerns and provide appropriate support.

Staff involved people, and where appropriate their carers, in discussions about their care and made sure decision‑making took account of personal circumstances and communication needs. When people required support to be involved in decisions, most staff acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act and ensured best‑interest decision‑making was documented and appropriately managed. However, we did find an example where this was not documented in a patients records.

The service used learning from feedback, complaints and individual experiences to improve equity in care delivery. Actions taken to address identified inequalities were shared with staff and incorporated into service planning and delivery. Overall, the service demonstrated that it listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality and tailored diagnostic imaging services so that experiences and outcomes were equitable.

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.