Queens 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This was the first inspection for this this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant patients were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We looked for evidence that patients were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that patients’ privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take patients’ wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

Staff treated patients with kindness and respected their privacy and dignity. Patients’ individual needs were acknowledged and respected.

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.

The service always treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients told us staff were consistently kind, caring and supportive. They said staff took time to explain procedures clearly, answer additional questions and help them feel at ease. They described their experiences as positive, noting that staff were approachable and happy to chat, which helped reduce anxiety. One person who had attended the service over several years for treatment said staff were always helpful and continued to provide compassionate care throughout their visits.

Patients were encouraged to provide feedback through the NHS Friends and Family Test. Clear signage was displayed throughout diagnostic imaging areas explaining how to provide feedback. As part of our inspection, we reviewed Friends and Family Test data from May to October 2025. During this period, 1125 responses were received, with 93% of patients reporting satisfaction with the service and 1% reporting dissatisfaction.

Chaperones were offered to patients and when requested would be present during examinations. This role was completed by trained members of staff.

Staff aimed to maintain privacy and dignity throughout appointments and there were dedicated changing areas. However, one patient that we spoke to told us that they felt that the gowns provided were not appropriate for sitting in waiting areas as they felt exposed.

Confidential discussions took place in private, and we observed privacy blinds and curtains being used to maintain patient dignity during examinations.

The service treated patients as individuals and made sure patients’ care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Staff took account of patients’ strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff recognised when patients had individual needs arising from their cultural, personal, religious or social backgrounds, and these were understood and supported wherever possible. For example, patients could be directed to the multi‑faith prayer rooms for quiet reflection and prayer. There was also a multi-faith chaplaincy service available to provide pastoral, spiritual and religious support to patients.

Patients were able to request same sex staff for procedures, and this would be accommodated.

Leaders told us that when required staff sought support from the learning disability and dementia specialist nurses to ensure that patients individual needs were supported whilst in the department.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We observed staff explaining the scanning process to patients in full before the procedure, and patients were encouraged to be part of the decision-making process. Staff ensured that information was shared, and patients were informed of the benefits and risks associated with their care, so that they could make informed choices.

Patients told us that they felt they were given enough time during the appointment for the procedure to be explained, and that they felt listened to. This was reflected in the patient experience survey completed by the department. Data reviewed showed that from April to October 2025 89% of patients felt that information was explained to them in a way that they could understand. 69% of patients felt that they were able to ask questions prior to their imaging (14.5% responded that they did not have questions to ask).

The service listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment.

Staff supported patients respectfully. We observed that staff responding promptly to patients’ additional needs when they required assistance, for example by giving extra time to explain why diagnostic tests or screening were required or supporting patients with mobility issues.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access the service and offered choice wherever possible. Should a patient express that they wished for an appointment to be completed at a different hospital in the trust this would be accommodated where possible.

Patients received ear protection during MRI procedures and staff monitored them using CCTV to maintain safety and comfort. The service recognised that MRI scanning typically makes patients more anxious than other imaging modalities due to the noise and duration of the procedure. To help counter this headphones or earplugs were offered to patients.

Toilets were in or close to each department, with clear signage, and accessible facilities were available throughout the hospital. Water coolers with squash were available throughout diagnostic imaging departments, and some clinics also offered warm refreshments, although this was not consistent across all areas.

The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

At the time of our inspection 70.1% of diagnostic imaging staff across the trust had received an appraisal, this was below the target of 90%. Staff in some areas also raised concerns about the level of support they received from management, particularly during periods of sickness. Several staff reported feeling unable to take appropriate time off when unwell due to staffing pressures within the department and perceived pressure from line managers.

As part of the inspection, we reviewed data from the annual staff survey. This covered all diagnostic imaging departments across the trust. Leaders shared the positive findings with staff and put actions in place to address areas that had not performed as well. These actions included increasing the frequency of staff meetings, strengthening the appraisal process and offering additional wellbeing support.

Wellbeing champions were in place throughout the service, and staff had access to a range of support programmes which they were encouraged to access. Flexible working requests were considered in line with service needs, and staff could access occupational health, counselling and psychological support when required.