Royal Derby Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We checked the service treated people as individuals, promoted people’s independence and understood people’s needs. We checked the service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were treated with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. The service treated people as individuals, promoted people’s independence and understood people’s needs. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed that staff were caring, they provided patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Staff took the time to interact with people who used the service in a discreet, respectful and considerate way and gave them the time they needed to understand information provided. Patients spoke positively about staff, and said they felt safe and well cared for throughout their appointments.

Staff told us that they supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Patients told us they understood why they were attending and what to expect.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Patients could request same sex staff and their preferences were respected. We were told that staff ensured when intimate procedures were undertaken, patients were offered the option of a chaperone.

Staff consistently ensured privacy and dignity was respected and maintained. Staff maintained patient confidentiality. The site had dedicated changing areas for privacy throughout the departments where it was required, and the areas were clearly signposted to guide people to the correct location. When staff were discussing confidential information, this was done in private. We saw that privacy blinds and curtains were used to promote patient dignity during examinations and doors were always closed. Patients told us that their privacy was respected and that they felt secure during their appointments. During the inspection, we observed staff treating people with dignity, kindness and compassion. Staff were compassionate and sensitive in their interactions with patients.

The service used patient surveys to gather feedback. Posters were displayed to encourage responses. Friends and family data from April to November 2025 showed that on average across all imaging departments 99.5% of patients felt their privacy and dignity was maintained. It also showed that on average across all imaging departments 99.8% of patients felt staff treated them with courtesy and respect.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People told us staff discussed and understood their clinical, social and personal circumstances and respected their wishes. They told us staff respected their cultural needs.

Staff met patients’ communication needs to enable patients to engage in their diagnostic tests to maximise their experience and outcomes.

Staff had access to information about patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff explained how they supported patients’ ant those accompanying patients who had protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service promoted people’s independence and supported them to have choice over their own treatment and care as much as possible.

The service users we spoke with said staff took into consideration their individual choices and wishes as much as possible. Theys told us they were kept informed about their care and given information to help them understand the decisions they needed to make. This included specific checks in MRI and nuclear medicine.

Staff explained to patients how their rights would be upheld throughout appointments. For example, staff offered a chaperone service for any patients that wanted this. Staff explained how patients could also be supported by loved ones during appointments if the patients wished for this.

Friends and Family data was collected from April to November 2025. It showed high levels of patient satisfaction across departments. 94.3% of patients could ask questions before their x‑ray or scan. They were able to discuss any concerns with a member of staff. 89.2% of patients received information before attending their x‑ray or scan. 82.9% of patients were told how to contact the department afterward. This helped patients know what to do if they had concerns or queries.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff supported people in a kind and respectful way. We observed that staff recognised when patients required additional support and acted promptly, for example providing extra time for explanations to ensure patients fully understood why they were attending to have diagnostic testing or screening.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services and made efforts to offer choice in appointments. This included offering pre-site visits to the MRI scanner for patients with additional needs or claustrophobia and allowing for a chaperone to be present when it was safe to do so. Patients were offered ear protection and monitored by CCTV during MRI procedures to ensure safety and comfort.

There were toilets in or close to each department which were clearly signposted and accessible toilets were available throughout the hospital.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Most staff we spoke to told us they felt valued, respected, and enjoyed their roles. Staff felt part of both the team and the wider hospital where they worked across different departments. Staff told us there were cooperative and supportive relationships among staff and leaders.

The service performed close to the average for the trust on each of the metrics recorded as part of the NHS staff survey. The service had a poster highlighting what went well and what did not and had priorities in place. These actions included increasing the frequency of staff meetings to make people feel more included and increasing the value of appraisals, along with additional wellbeing support.

Staff told us they generally felt well supported in their roles. They described having access to learning sessions, development days, and simulation training that helped them feel confident and prepared. Leaders ensured staff had protected time for training, even during busy periods, which helped reduce pressure. Appraisals included supportive conversations about staff needs and goals, although not everyone had an up‑to‑date appraisal.

There was a focus on the safety and well-being of staff with support programs open to staff. Wellbeing champions were appointed across staff groups. Staff had access to flexible working arrangements. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff could access counselling services and psychological support if needed. The service had a wellbeing hub available for all staff which had a range of resources to help them.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, there were trust staff awards and recognition given from the senior leadership team.