Royal Shrewsbury 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

Staff spoke with kindness and respect to patients and colleagues alike. Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive. They introduced themselves to patients. Staff maintained patients’ confidentiality by discussing personal details about their examinations out of earshot of others, and patient identifiable information was not visible in patient areas. We observed staff protecting patients’ dignity whilst being prepared for magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography examinations by drawing blinds so they could not be seen by other staff in the control room. All patients for ultrasound examinations were accompanied by a chaperone and chaperones could be requested by patients.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service considered peoples’ individual needs and adjusted accordingly. Staff were able to access translation services. Clerical staff pre-booked face to face translators, although staff told us that there had been occasions were a translator had not attended. In such scenarios, or where staff were not made aware ahead of time that a translator was required, staff could access telephone translation. However, we saw little evidence of leaflets or other information in languages other than English.

We viewed the form used to exclude pregnancy in patients undergoing examinations involving ionising radiation. The form, given to all patients aged 12-55 years, used inclusive language in line with the Society of Radiographers’ inclusive pregnancy status guidelines. A leader in the service had also undertaken transgender care training.

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.

Staff ensured that patients were informed of the benefits and risks associated with their examinations, so that they could make informed choices.

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 were aware of risks requiring immediate action and how to deal with them. Staff were assessed on management of emergency scenarios as part of modality specific competencies, and staff had recently completed training on anaphylaxis. At the time of inspection, 75% of staff had completed mandatory evacuation training. Emergency alarms were fitted in patient toilets, and closed-circuit television covered areas where staff did not have direct oversight, such as the waiting room of the Evolution scanning suite. We observed a test of the emergency bleep in the X-Ray department which staff had to respond to provide assurance that radiology could be called to the Emergency Department quickly when required. During scanning, staff were able to maintain a good view of patients and had access to emergency stop functions. We observed staff speaking to patients in a way to minimise any anxiety or distress.

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.

Staff we spoke with generally felt respected, supported and valued by the service. Staff were given opportunities to develop their careers, and we saw examples of staff members who had developed from x-ray assistants to radiographers, and band 5 radiographers who had become advanced practitioners in reporting. There were also several consultant radiographers in post, including 3 in breast imaging. Staff spoke about other formal and informal opportunities for continuous professional development including postgraduate certificates, and educational talks from equipment manufacturers.

Managers celebrated staff achievements through ‘star cards’, including rewarding top performers in vetting imaging requests, as leaders recognised that this could be perceived by staff as a ‘thankless task’. Staff rated ‘We are safe and healthy’, which covered themes such as exhaustion and burnout, and bullying and harassment in line with the trust average in the 2025 staff survey. ‘We are recognised and rewarded’ which covered themes such as pay and recognition was scored just below the trust average.