Queens 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 patients’ care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This was the first inspection for this assessment service group. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We looked for evidence that patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patients’ 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.

There were clear admission and vetting policies to ensure that referrals were managed in line appropriate legislation, trust standards and evidence-based guidance. Clinical guidance was in line with national best practice and reviewed regularly. Staff received appropriate regular clinical supervision.

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 patients’ care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service had clear admission and vetting policies in place to ensure staff assessed all referrals appropriately and in line with legislation, trust standards and evidence‑based guidance. The service updated these policies in accordance with national recommendations, including guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Policies we reviewed during the inspection were current, relevant and accessible to staff through the trust intranet.

Staff had access to clear admission criteria before patients attended for imaging. Clinical staff triaged referrals to ensure patients were placed on the correct diagnostic pathway.

At the point of referral, staff assessed patients’ individual needs so that appropriate arrangements could be made in advance. This included identifying the need for interpreters, mobility support or reasonable adjustments. Staff told us they could access specialist support, such as dementia and learning disability nurses, when patients required additional assistance. There were dementia champions within the department.

The service used an electronic patient record system that enabled staff across the trust to access relevant information and contribute to ongoing care planning. This supported effective multidisciplinary working and ensured that any changes to a patient’s condition or requirements were recorded promptly and acted upon.

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

Clinical guidelines, pathways and policies were based on national standards. These policies were reviewed regularly to ensure they reflected up‑to‑date national recommendations, including guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). All the policies we looked at during the inspection were current, relevant, and in line with recognised best practice. Staff could access these policies through the organisation’s intranet.

Staff could seek specialist advice when required. Reporting radiographers and radiologists were available to support colleagues and staff had access to the medical physics team.

The medical physics team supported regular clinical audits. Staff monitored radiation doses to ensure that they remained as low as reasonably possible and diagnostic referral levels had been established for all procedures.

There was a clear induction process for new staff that was tailored to the specific imaging area they were joining. Regular clinical supervision took place, and the service had a structured Imaging Radiation Protection Supervisor Observation Plan to ensure this was completed consistently.

The imaging department carried out a wide range of routine audits to keep people safe and continually improve the service. Staff regularly reviewed X‑rays that had been rejected. This helped them understand why images needed repeating and reduced unnecessary radiation exposure for patients. They also completed yearly checks to make sure staff were following the local safety standards for interventional procedures (LocSSIP), and radiation protection adviser (RPA) checks were completed on all equipment that used radiation to ensure it was safe and working properly.

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

Imaging staff worked closely with colleagues across other departments, including the emergency department, to ensure people could access imaging services promptly and efficiently. Staff took part in multidisciplinary meetings.

Coordination of care across hospital teams and the wider trust was well managed. Staff described positive working relationships with colleagues and said they routinely discussed any issues or concerns.

Most teams held daily huddles to share updates and key information, and staff told us they felt able to seek support and advice when needed. They reported good teamwork and said working relationships across the service were constructive and supportive.

The service supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

Healthier choices were promoted in waiting areas with posters signposting people to additional support services, such as smoking cessation, weight management programmes. Staff referred to specialist clinical teams when imaging findings indicated further health risks.

The service routinely monitored patients’ care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patients themselves.

Managers reviewed audit results and made changes when needed. During our inspection, we saw evidence that audit findings were discussed at governance meetings and that action plans were put in place to address any issues.

The service recognised that not all scans were being reported within nationally expected timeframes. Data from 2025 showed that some patients waited longer than the national standard of four weeks for their imaging report, and some waited more than six weeks. Leaders told us they had to balance national targets with clinical priorities, such as urgent inpatient and cancer pathways. They explained that when the service had focused on meeting the four‑week target, cancer reporting suffered. When they refocused and prioritised cancer pathways there was a reduction in waiting time for this type of imaging however, waits increased for outpatient and GP X‑ray reports which were deemed as lower risk. From November 2025, temporary external funding helped increase capacity, which allowed the service to meet both cancer targets and the four‑week standard.

We also looked at how long it took for different types of scans to be reported. Over the past year, reporting times for MRI and CT scans had mostly improved. Reporting times for X‑rays varied, with slower reporting for urgent GP requests. Ultrasound reporting times had declined overall, including for inpatient, outpatient and GP referrals.

Leaders explained that delays were mainly caused by capacity issues, including rising numbers of referrals, staff shortages and limits on available scanning time. They were aware of the pressures, and staff told us they always considered clinical urgency and reporting timeframes when reviewing and reporting scans.

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

Patients had access to clear relevant information about their imaging procedures, enabling patients to prepare appropriately, and make informed decisions about their care. Information was available both digitally and in printed form, with easy read versions and translated materials offered where required.

Staff obtained consent from patients in line with relevant legislation and national guidance and understood the legal requirements for doing so. The trust had up to date consent policies, including a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) policy. These provided clear guidance for situations where a patient might lack capacity to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. This included processes for assessing capacity and considering a patient’s best interests. These policies were accessible to all staff.

Staff sought consent before providing any care or treatment, and we saw them explain procedures clearly. They recorded consent in patient records. The service audited this as part of its Local Safety Standards for Interventional Procedures (LocSSIP) safety checks. Between November 2024 and April 2025, the average compliance rate was 98%.

Managers also audited how well staff completed safety checks before MRI scans. Between January and December 2025, the service achieved 100% compliance.