Good Hope 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 that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that 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 that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This is not the first assessment for this service but is the first time the service has been rated. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s care and treatment was delivered in line with evidence-based practice. Staff and teams worked well together to ensure people benefited from effective care and treatment. People’s outcomes were monitored and where required actions taken to improve their experience. Consent was managed in accordance with legal requirements.

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Patients were confident their needs had been assessed and were fully understood. The patients we met and families who were supporting them knew why they were there and what was happening. Patients who were waiting for a procedure had been risk assessed and given advice around what to wear, eat and drink should any of that be of issue in relation to the procedure they were having. For example, patients who were booked for an MRI scan were asked a series of questions and given advice around their safety when the procedure was being carried out. This included removing any metal, jewellery, and watches, for example, and also any medicinal patches which needed to be removed.

Patients’ needs were assessed in real time. For example, when a patient we met was having an MRI scan, the radiographer who was operating the equipment checked with them several times if they were OK. They also informed the patient that all was going well and indicated when they were coming to the end of the procedure. Similarly, a patient undergoing a bone densitometry (DEXA) scan was asked continuously by staff asked if they were OK and informed them of exactly what was happening during the scan.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The department had policies and standard operating procedures which were in line with evidence-based practice, standards set by Royal Colleges and relevant regulations such as the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017.

Staff across the department participated in audits and quality improvement initiatives. Staff were aware of NHS England’s ‘Getting it right first time (GIRFT)’ recommendations and were keen to implement and embed this within diagnostic imaging. Within mammography, leaders were keen to ensure the gold standards relating to screening were embedded for symptomatic patients.

Staff and leaders were encouraged to learn about new and innovative approaches which evidence showed could improve the way the service was delivered. Staff regularly attended continuing professional development (CPD) sessions which were facilitated by the service’s education team. Details of upcoming CPD sessions were advertised in newsletters.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

There was good multidisciplinary team working within the department and with the wider hospital staff and teams. All patients who came to the service for a procedure were referred by other specialists or GPs. Staff had access to patients records to review the reason for their visit, and for safety, any recent procedures of a similar nature. A patient we reviewed had been to the department multiple times for imaging, understandably, during their inpatient stay. Staff assured themselves through vetting it was safe to provide further imaging for this patient before proceeding. We also observed a team meeting to discuss a patient’s imaging and next steps in terms of treatment. There was a good representation of staff from various roles and clear processes were followed for an effective meeting.

There was an effective sharing of images with the right staff. Information was shared between the department, the team who would read and report on the image, and the referrer. This was carried out through images being uploaded to the imaging record system to enable them to be read and reported back to the clinician.

Aside from the issues previously identified in relation to patients arriving in the department without supervision and accompaniment, the service generally had a positive working relationship with portering services and staff from the wards.

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.

Opportunities were taken when appropriate to encourage and support people to make good choices about their health and wellbeing. There were posters seen within the department giving people advice and others to contact around health promotion or services to support them. For example, within the DEXA service, there were posters with information about osteoporosis which might support lifestyle changes.

Work around audits needed to improve to ensure the service was giving the most effective care and continuously improving it. However, most outcomes that had been collected were reportedly positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Leaders told us the service needed to improve how they presented the outcomes from audits, especially where areas for improvement were identified. Staff told us they undertook a range of audits (national and local) to support improvement within the diagnostic imaging department. National audits were mandated by the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) and the service participated in these. Local audits were directed by any changes required or incidents observed. The service had an audit schedule for all modalities as well as the IR(ME)R annual schedule, identifying an audit to be completed each month. Examples of audits identified included patient identification and consent audits, dose audit (diagnostic reference levels), pregnancy check audit and MRI safety screening audit among others. However, no results from these audits were shared to demonstrate how the service were performing.

People who used the service had positive outcomes as almost all scans and imaging were fit for the required clinical purpose. Leaders told us they had a process for peer reviewing radiology reports, although they told us this could be better. The service were therefore currently looking to implement a software to support this process. Staff monitored the discrepancy rates which was currently reported as 3.5%. Leaders told us this was within the College’s acceptable range of up to 5%.

Information on additional audits which were completed based on the need for changes were shared after the inspection. These audits included appropriateness of requests for specific diagnostic investigations, consistency in scanning for specific medical conditions, referral quality and imaging practices for specific fractures among others. These audits identified areas for improvement and recommendations, with most also recommending follow up audit and a specific timeframe whereby to complete this.

The department monitored the quality of the images and scans taken for patients and took action to improve if there were concerns. There was a culture of looking for continuous improvement to areas such as reducing the time taken to produce a scan. Some of the MRI and CT scans took a considerable amount of time and were recognised to be uncomfortable for the patient at times. Staff were always looking for options to minimise the time taken and in doing so, optimise the number of patients that could be seen.

The diagnostic imaging service for the whole trust had been provisionally awarded accreditation against the College’s Quality Standards for Imaging. The diagnostic imaging service had undergone a review by the College in February 2026, with positive feedback provided following this review. Areas of key strengths identified were effective clinical processes, high quality education and training, and strong patient focused services.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff were aware of the rules around consent and applied these with patients in their care. They made sure people fully understood what they were consenting to. Almost all the procedures were non-invasive, and patients were not required to give written consent: they were asked to give either verbal or implied consent. Patients were asked by staff if they were happy for the procedure to be carried out. Staff explained what the procedure would entail and asked if they had any questions.

Patients said they had been asked to give their consent, and staff had explained to them what they were there for and what they could expect. We observed staff asking patients in a number of areas within the department if they consented to proceed with their scan or investigation.

Patients’ capacity and ability to consent was considered. Staff understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance, including the Mental Health Act, Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Children Acts 1989 and 2004. They knew who to contact for advice around consent and the law. Staff understood how they should act with people who could not give valid consent either as they were sedated or not conscious or did not have the mental capacity at the time to consent. Staff relied on the medical team who had made the referral to have sought authority to act in the best interests of the patient. Unless the patient was a young child who could not give their own consent, staff knew not to rely on family members giving consent for their relative unless they had specific legal authority. Staff understood Gillick Competence and supported young people to make decisions about their care.