Mount Gould 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.

This key question has been rated good. This meant people could access care to meet their needs.

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.

Feedback collected by the service showed over 98% rated staff as very good or good.

The referral process captured information to support staff caring for people during their appointments. Staff received training in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people.

Staff said they could access specially trained dementia, autism, and learning disability nursing staff to support during appointments if required. Staff discussed service access during performance meetings and had action plans to make improvements.

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.

People using the service told us the service was accessible.

At the time of our assessment of the service the service was open from 8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. The service worked as part of the trust’s wider diagnostic imaging service. During the assessment we saw the service supporting another location which closed due to equipment failure, this included making appointments available and arranging transport for people to be seen at Mount Gould Hospital on the same day.

Staff told us that there was flexibility in the trust’s provision of diagnostic imaging to react to unexpected events effecting the service.

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

People using the service said they had received adequate information about their appointment. Friends and family test results showed most people received enough information about their X-ray and how they would receive image results. One person said, ‘they communicated what was happening to me. Very helpful'.

Staff knew their responsibilities when providing information. They knew how to identify people's individual needs on the service's booking system and had access to communication tools and specialist staff to support. Staff understood the importance of interpreters for people who required them. Staff understood the importance of protecting people's data and told us how they followed policies to ensure this happened.

The service had up-to-date processes and policies to provide accessible information in line with standards. There was a process to review policies and information in line with relevant standards such as General Data Protection Regulations and The Accessible Information Standard. The service had not reported any incidents of data breaches in the 12 months prior to the assessment.

The booking process identified people's individual needs which enabled appointment letters to be sent in a suitable format or language. The service had a process to book interpreters prior to appointments. Letters sent to people contained information about their appointment along with a leaflet detailing how X-ray imaging works and associated radiation risks. Referrers received scan results securely and were responsible for providing results.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

During the assessment people told us they had no complaints about the service. The service actively collected feedback from people through feedback and complaints processes.

There was a clear up-to-date complaints policy. Staff understood the complaints process and viewed complaints as a learning opportunity. The service’s waiting room displayed information on how to make a complaint. People could also make a complaint using the trust’s website, which also included on how to escalate complaints. In the 12 months prior to our assessment of the service there had been no complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Feedback collected by the service showed 97% of people who had used the service received information when expected or sooner. People using the service told us the service was accessible. One person told us "… the service was very accessible. The service was easy to find, and the café next door was good. Staff I saw were very helpful."

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in making the service accessible. They were aware of exclusion criteria and the process to follow should a person attend an appointment who was not suitable for X-ray.

The service had clear criteria for making appointments. The service was not suitable for bariatric people due to equipment availability. People who did not meet booking criteria were offered appointments at one of the trust's other locations more suited to their needs. The environment was accessible for people using the service. The service was clearly signposted with a main hospital reception desk directing people as required. There was step-free access across the site with wheelchairs available. People who required a quiet environment were given appointments at times when the service was not expected to be busy. The service's booking team worked with others to support people. They had processes to work with local authority teams to support people accessing the service should they have no fixed address.

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 had processes to support equity in experience. Staff vetted referrals based on clinical information only. The service monitored wait times and non-attendance rates. People who did not attend an appointment were contacted and rebooked depending on the urgency of the X-ray.

Staff told us they provided the same level of care to all people and have access to additional support to help care for people if needed.

The service was made aware of people’s known medical wishes in the referral process. People’s wish for staff not to attempt resuscitation was recorded on the booking system. Staff knew how to find information relating to a people’s wishes.