- NHS hospital
The Princess Royal Hospital
Assessment report published 15 July 2026
Contents
Ratings - Diagnostic imaging
Our view of the service
We inspected 25 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We previously inspected diagnostic imaging jointly with outpatients, so we cannot compare our new ratings directly with previous ratings.
We conducted a comprehensive inspection of diagnostic imaging services at the Princess Royal Hospital and Hollinswood House on 30 April 2026. The team comprised of a CQC inspector and a specialist advisor. A team comprising of 2 CQC inspectors revisited the service on 7 May to conduct interviews with senior leaders in the service. The inspection took place due to intelligence of concern about the service. Furthermore, there had never been a standalone inspection of the diagnostic imaging services assessment service group. The service was last inspected in 2014 as part of the former outpatients and diagnostic imaging core service where it was rated good overall. There were combined breaches with outpatients and diagnostic imaging, stating that the trust must ensure to make improvements; we reviewed all these breaches during this inspection, and we found many areas requiring the improvements had been met.
During this inspection, the service was rated as requires improvement overall. There were not always enough staff to safely meet patients demand or support all activities within the department. As a result, staffing levels did not consistently meet the needs of the service. In addition, not all staff had completed the required mandatory training, which further impacted the department’s ability to provide safe and effective care. Delays in turnaround and waiting times also remained a challenge, with patients experiencing avoidable and unnecessary delays in accessing care.
There were breaches of regulation relating to non-compliance in mandatory training, staffing and turnaround times for some examinations.
However,
The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements. Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patient, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated.
Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment were based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.
The service consistently delivered person-centred care, with patients treated with kindness, compassion, and respect at all times, and their privacy and dignity was upheld. Staff recognised patients as individuals, supported their preferences, and responded promptly to their needs. Patients were given clear, understandable information and had opportunities to ask questions, enabling them to make informed decisions about their care and diagnostic procedures. Patients were aware of how to raise concerns and confident these would be taken seriously. The service actively monitored and improved access, making reasonable adjustments to the environment to meet diverse needs and reduce barriers. Work was undertaken to address health inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, training, and feedback. Patients were supported to be involved in decisions about their care, and staff wellbeing was promoted to sustain compassionate and effective care delivery.
Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders had sound oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems. Staff with protected characteristics felt supported.
There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.
People's experience of this service
Patients, their family or carers were positive about staff, saying they treated them with warmth and kindness and provided effective care and treatment. Records showed they were usually given the tests they needed, and felt staff were on hand if they needed them for help or support. Patients said they did not feel anxious about raising concerns. Most said communication with them was good, but some patients said they would have appreciated more information more often if the department was running behind on time.