Royal Derby 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 the service met people’s needs by providing person-centred care and providing information. We checked the service understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities. We looked for evidence people could access the service in a timely manner and had equitable outcomes.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant the service met people’s needs by providing person-centred care and providing information. The service understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities and people could access the service in a timely manner and had equitable outcomes.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 so that they understood their care, treatment and condition and any advice was given using easy read leaflets, and translation services if needed. The service had access to an interpreting service for patients whose first language was not English including British Sign Language interpreters if needed. Staff in all departments had access to a ‘translator on wheels’ if an interpreter was unavailable which could be used to avoid delays.

The service made reasonable adjustments where necessary such as extending the length of appointments for patients. Staff were focused on delivering patient centred care and respected the individual needs of each person. Patients were treated as individuals with treatment and care being offered in a flexible way and tailored to meet their needs.

Staff in the departments had links to specialist nurses and occasionally had specialists within departments, including learning disability and autism nurses. The trust were in the process of rolling out training in learning disability and autism. As part of the Health and Social Care act CQC-registered providers must ensure their staff receive learning disability and autism training appropriate to their role. There was a target of 30% compliance by the end of 2025, which the trust are on target to meet by the end of March 2026. The trusts learning disability team were providing training until updated competencies were published in September 2025. There are staff members who are certified trainers that are awaiting availability for processes to evidence compliance and begin training.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff across the different departments we inspected demonstrated an awareness of the diverse health and care needs of their local communities.

Staff within imaging departments worked closely alongside colleagues in other areas, such as the emergency department, to provide effective timely access to their services. This allowed care to be joined up and supported continuity. Across the outpatient areas we visited, we saw that patients were signposted to local community support groups.

The service worked with external services who referred patients to ensure care was joined-up and diagnostic imaging departments provided tests in a timely way to ensure patients had continuity of care. Patients told us there was flexibility when arranging appointments, with options to manage bookings electronically via the online portal ‘Patient knows best’ or receive appointment letters by post, depending on their preference.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Most information given to patients or their relatives across the service was verbal. Patients we spoke with told us they generally felt well informed about their appointments, and some had received leaflets with their appointment letters. We observed staff keeping patients informed if there were any delays in departments, and patients were informed of waiting times on arrival.

The service ensured it met the legal requirement for the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) to provide information and communication support for people with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss, ensuring they can understand information and communicate effectively. Any additional communication needs were identified as part of the booking process.

The service provided information in a way people could understand. This included being able to provide interpretation for people who did not speak English as a first language. This could be done by either hiring an interpreter, using a ‘translator on wheels’ or providing information leaflets in alternative languages. They were also able to obtain interpreters for people who used British Sign Language as their first language.

Throughout the inspection we observed that staff maintained patient records and information confidentially. They ensured computers were locked or turned off when unattended in patient areas and patient identifiable information was not left unattended across departments.

Patients and relatives had contact details for departments if they had queries regarding their appointment. The contact details were also available on the trust website. Patients we spoke with said they felt able to ask questions or raise any concerns to staff if needed. Friends and family data between April and November 2025 provided following our inspection showed 82.9% of patients were advised how to contact the department if they had any concerns or queries after their examination.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients we spoke with were aware of how to raise any concerns or complaints about the service. There was information across all departments directing patients to the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) to provide feedback. Data provided following our inspection showed that between that from October 2024 to November 2025 the imaging department received 43 official complaints, which was a low number overall.

Patients and carers had opportunities to give feedback. We saw information displayed requesting patient feedback in all waiting areas and clinics across the hospital. Managers and staff had access to the feedback from patients, carers and used it to make improvements. There was information on boards across departments referencing changes that had been made as a result of feedback.

Staff followed the trust policy for managing concerns and complaints. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Leaders monitored response times and any themes identified from complaints and the most common theme was ‘staff attitude’ with 7 complaints, which was still a relatively low number. The trust had a formal complaints policy that aligned with NHS complaints standards and relevant legislation. Complainants were offered the choice of attending a complaint meeting followed by a written response or receiving a written response only.

The service made changes as a result of patient feedback. Leaders told us the most common concern and complaint raised used to be difficulty in making appointments. This was due to a variety of issues including the telephone system, staffing numbers appointment availability. To tackle this issue the trust have introduced a digital telephone booking system and appointments over 4 weeks in advance are made by letter to avoid using this system. The trust is now also trialing internet booking. The combination of these changes have reduced feedback in relation to this by around 75%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients could access diagnostic services when they needed to. Diagnostic imaging was operational 24 hours per day, seven days a week for emergencies. For routine appointments, most diagnostic services operated weekdays, usually approximately between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00. Services mostly operated on a pre-scheduled appointment basis. There was adequate medical cover day and night to cover emergency imaging services. The environment was accessible for people with disabilities.

People we spoke with said their care and treatment was well coordinated and they had a choice of appointment times and could book using a letter or over the phone. Internet booking for the service was also in a trial phase. However, some patients did say they waited a long time for appointments.

Patients requiring routine appointments could generally access the service in a timely way. Staff and leaders told us of there was high demand across many areas of the service, and there was not always enough capacity to meet demand. The service had made some improvement in access to timely imaging services. As part of the inspection process, we requested data from the trust in relation to current wait times for scans. As of 21 January, the current percentage of people receiving their scan within the national and local target was 77.4% with an average performance over 2025 of 77.6%. This was an improvement on the previous year, and was about the national average.

The service monitored do not attend (DNA) rates across the imaging service. Data provided following the inspection showed that between November 2024 to October 2025, the service had an average DNA rate of 5.9%. This was below the NHS average. Staff told us they had procedures in the event of patients not attending for appointments. A regular reminder service was used to help improve attendance. The service had an action plan which identified trends, contributing factors, and looked for opportunities for improvement.

The service made adjustments for service users by ensuring people’s access to premises and by meeting their specific communication needs. Staff understood the need to make reasonable adjustments where identified, such as allowing flexibility in people’s appointment times and allowing them to be accompanied by a relative or carer during their treatment.

The service provided information about how patients could access the hospital using public transport and had clear information on available parking at the hospital site.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which patients felt empowered to give their views. Staff completed training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. The trust had an Inclusion and Belonging Policy which was reviewed regularly and in date. Staff had a good understanding of the people who use their service that are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and they take steps to minimise barriers to inclusion.

Staff made adjustments for people with additional needs. The trust was in the process of rolling out training in learning disability and autism. As part of the Health and Social Care act CQC-registered providers must ensure their staff receive learning disability and autism training appropriate to their role. There was an NHS England target of 30% compliance for Oliver McGowan training by the end of 2025, which the trust were on target to meet by the end of March 2026.

The trust prioritised inpatient and cancer reporting and since November 2025 they had received external funding to reduce the wait for cancer examination reporting and allowed the 4-week standard to be set. As a result of this focus on cancer, reporting plain film is the lowest priority, making up 95% of the waiting over 4 weeks and 99% of the waiting over 6 weeks for reporting targets.

The hospital offered a seven-day service across most departments. People felt the service was efficient and told us they generally did not experience long waits throughout the service. Where there were delays in seeing patients, we observed staff keeping patients informed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff supported service users to make decisions about their care and treatment. Staff took account of their individual needs, wishes and feelings. Patient referrals came from other trust departments internally and from healthcare partners. The trust worked to ensure results were shared as quickly as possible with the referrers, so patients had enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Due to the nature of the service it was not directly involved in end of life care for patients. However, staff had an understanding of DNACPR and ReSPECT forms. DNACPR stands for "Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation" and is a medical decision that states that a patient should not be resuscitated if their heart stops or they stop breathing. ReSPECT stands for recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment. The ReSPECT process creates a summary of personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care in a future emergency in which they cannot make decisions or to express wishes.