Good Hope 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 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 needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and staff provided information in formats which met the needs of the patient. However, people were not always able to access the care and treatment they needed when they needed it.

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.

People understood their condition, care and treatment options and the risks and benefits of any procedure they were about to undertake. Patients who used the service told us their needs were considered and that scan procedures were carried out in line with their expectations and preferences. Patients who did not have the mental capacity to understand everything at times were supported by people who acted in their best interests.

The service made reasonable adjustments for patients and those who supported them to make sure their care was person-centred. Staff worked hard to make the patient feel at the centre of the process and keep them well informed. We observed staff positively interacting with patients during their appointments. Staff ensured they explained the procedures the patients were due to undergo and checked to ensure the patients understood and also whether they had any questions. Staff always placed the patient at the centre of the care and treatment they delivered.

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 received care and treatment from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. Senior leaders were involved in working groups to develop pathways based on national priorities and the needs of the local community.

People received continuity in care and treatment which was flexible and joined up. The service provided fast track mammography for patients who attended the breast care clinic, where there was a concern the patient may have cancer. Staff were able to provide the patient with a diagnosis on the day, and this enabled staff to ensure further care could be promptly scheduled.

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

People got information and advice which was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way they understood and met their communication needs. There was limited written information required for people from the imaging teams, as most information would be sent or given to the patient through the booking team, their GP, or staff on the ward if they were an inpatient. However, people were given information, such as how long they might have to wait for their results, and who they would be likely to come from. Staff helped people and those with them with any questions they had to the best of their ability.

People had information tailored to meet their needs, which included making reasonable adjustments. Staff ensured they made provision for people for whom English was not their first language and helping those who had hearing or vision loss. Where patients were known to have impairments which required reasonable adjustments, alerts were place on their records to support staff to meet their needs.

People’s medical records were held securely and met data protection requirements. Patient records were held electronically on computer screens which were not generally visible to patients. Most were in areas used only by staff and these were locked when not in use to prevent unauthorised access.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People said they felt confident they could make a complaint or give feedback if they needed to. Most said they would ask staff how to provide feedback whether it was good or a concern, or they might look on the hospital website. The information about giving feedback was easily found on the trust’s website as were contact details to speak with a member of staff to talk through a concern. However, we did not observe many posters around the department which provided information on how to raise a complaint, concern or provide compliments.

Staff said they would hope to support someone with a concern before it escalated to a complaint. Staff said their managers and team leaders were helpful with patients with concerns and would step in when needed to find a resolution.

There were just 4 complaints raised about the service between 1 November 2025 and 28 April 2026. Three of the complaints were in relation to communication concerns (misinformation, misdiagnosis and sharing patient data externally) with the remaining complaint about staff behaving in an unprofessional manner. All complaints were progressing through the investigation process at the time of our inspection. Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement, At the end of the investigation, learning was disseminated. Staff told us learning from complaints was added to the department newsletter for all staff to read and embed.

Due to high and increasing demand on the service, it did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment in as timely a way as clinical preferred. There were some delays to reporting. However, staff were working hard to reduce the number of patients who did not attend their appointments and ensured reasonable adjustments were made where required.

Due to high and rising demand for diagnostic imaging, some patients could not always access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them. Staff regularly told us across all modalities of the challenges to see patients in a timely way, predominantly outpatients who required images. However, staff within DEXA, ultrasound and MRI believed their patients were the most impacted by this. Inpatients and patients who attended the hospital in an emergency were generally seen as quickly as possible. However, this reduced the capacity for managing planned outpatient appointments. There were currently 5,888 patients waiting for an imaging appointment. Of these, 1,119 patients (19%) had been waiting over 6 weeks. This was better than the national average at the time of our inspection which showed 24.9% of patients had been waiting over 6 weeks for an imaging appointment.

Staff monitored the waiting list and tried, where possible to speed up the patients’ appointments. This would include trying to book patients into appointments at other locations within the trust. However, staff told us not all patients accepted this and would rather wait for an appointment to become available at the location. Some of the longer waits for appointments were in relation to a lack of the right skill mix among the staff to perform a specific scan and delays in having those people available.

Staff told us they did not experience many patients failing to attend their appointments. They had started to contact patients who had not confirmed their appointments either through a telephone call or text. Staff told us this had reduced the number of ‘did not attend’ appointments (DNAs). Between October 2025 and March 2026, Fluoroscopy had the highest DNA rate of 5.6% followed by DEXA at 4.4% and CT scan at 4.3%. Mammography had the lowest DNA rates of 0.7%. Staff hoped changes to their systems expected this year would further reduce the DNA rates with patients being able to select an appointment time which suited them and also receiving email reminders as well.

There were some reporting delays. Staff we met raised concerns over the issues around reporting on images. Despite a new suite being provided for radiologists to use to report on images, staff still raised concerns over the delays around reporting images. The expected turnaround times for reporting on images was 1 week for suspected cancer patients, 2 weeks for urgent images and within 4 weeks for routine imaging. On 7 May 2026, for example, there were 1,245 examinations waiting for staff to report on them. The majority of these related to plain imaging. Of the images waiting to be reported on, 1,115 were images completed within 2 weeks. There were only 24 images waiting for reporting on over 4 weeks. The information showed 10 of these reports related to plain imaging, 7 for nuclear medicine 5 for CT scans and 2 for MRI. Staff told us any reports waiting for reporting over 10 days would be sent to an external organisation contracted to provide reporting where possible, however no additional information around the oversight or complications leading to delay in reporting was shared in relation to the 24 images still awaiting to be reported on.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients so they could get safe access to the service in a timely way. There was support for people with disabilities to be able to use the service safely. Staff knew which patients needed the sort of support with mobility which they could not provide, and those patients would be booked to attend other local hospitals with the right facilities.

The service provided 24-hour access for patients. Good Hope Hospital had an accident and emergency department which was open 24 hours a day, all year round. Patients who were brought into or attended the emergency department and needed a computed tomography (CT) scan or X-ray were brought to the department at any time of the day and night and were always promptly seen.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that might disadvantage different groups of people accessing care. They treated everyone as an individual and made allowances for different needs so that people’s equity in access was as fair, safe, and responsive as possible.

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.

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality and protected their rights. Staff treated each patient as an individual to meet their specific needs. A patient we met who was hard of hearing said staff had made sure they were able to understand and respond to any questions.

The trust complied with the legal requirements around equality and human rights including avoiding discrimination. Policies and procedures were set out with regard to acting against discrimination and supporting those with protected characteristics. The department had embedded the guidelines from the Society of Radiographers: Inclusive pregnancy status guidelines for ionising radiation (diagnostic and therapeutic exposures).

Senior staff told us they were aware of the local communities around the hospital and ensured any changes and updates made to the imaging pathways always took into account the health inequalities locally. An example of this was in relation to lung cancer and the potential barriers to accessing healthcare services in socially deprived areas.

All staff were required to complete inclusion and diversity training and 94% of staff had completed this training which was above the trust target of 90%.

People were supported to plan so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

The nature of the service provided meant there were no requirements for the service to provide routine after care support or schedule follow up appointments. However, people were provided with information after their scan if they had any questions .

The referring clinician or organisation was responsible for any ongoing care and treatment needs. However, some staff were involved in multidisciplinary team meetings to discuss the results of the images and the treatment options being considered for patients.

The nature of the service meant most patients attended once for their appointment, unless multiple scans were specified as part of their initial assessment. Patients who attended for DEXA scans were advised they would be called up for a further scan in 2 years’ time to continuously monitor their bone density.