The Princess Royal 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 people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s 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 people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This is the first assessment for this service since the combined inspection with outpatient’s department in 2014. This key question has been rated as good.

This meant patients 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 treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff introduced themselves to patients and said what their role was. Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. They took their time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

Staff in the scanning room responded to patients’ anxieties about their procedure and took steps to reduce the stress within the environment. Patients who were particularly anxious, who were very young or who had cognitive impairment were able to have somebody familiar with them.

In the scanning room patients were covered as far as possible and not unduly exposed. Staff were respectful to the patients. Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness.

Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

Patient experience data for diagnostic imaging services, including activity within the Community Diagnostic Centre, indicated a consistently high level of satisfaction aligned to outpatient services overall. Patients commonly reported positive experiences of caring, professional staff and felt well supported during appointments. However, recurring themes highlight challenges in appointment management, communication, particularly regarding delays and results, and ease of access, including navigation and booking processes. Targeted improvement work within radiology services had led to enhancements in signage, waiting environments, accessibility, and patient flow, with evidence of improved satisfaction following these interventions. Some feedback from national surveys also identified concerns regarding timeliness of diagnostic results and the availability of complete information during testing, indicating ongoing opportunities to strengthen coordination and communication across the diagnostic pathway.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs. Feedback was gathered through patient surveys and concerns were responded to. Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness. Patients were overwhelmingly positive about the service and staff in the imaging department. One patient said, “Good staff, very efficient and polite.”

The service made reasonable adjustments to meet patients’ individual needs, including ensuring accessibility to premises, providing appropriate equipment, and adapting communication approaches to support effective engagement and understanding.

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.

The staff provided reassurance throughout ultrasound scans, they updated the patient on how long they had been in the scanner and how long was left. Patients had a panic button they could press any time during the scan to summon help. Staff could stop the scanning immediately if the patient requested this.

Earplugs were available which protected patients’ ears and helped to reduce the noise. For those patients demonstrating heightened anxiety, staff provided choice and control to patients, such as use of the call bell, trying the scan beforehand, bringing someone with them, and the use of music during the scan procedure.

We saw examples within the fluoroscopy department of reasonable adjustments for patients with additional needs, including the use of a designated safe space for those with learning disabilities, autism and ADHD, where environmental adaptations such as adjustable and coloured lighting were used to support comfort and appropriate sensory stimulation.

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.

Patients could summon staff and there were emergency call bells sited close to patient treatment areas. Patients who used mobility aids such as walking frames had them close by and were assisted to use them after their scan was completed.

Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. They were empathetic and considerate of the stress of a scanning environment.

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 had access to resource and facilities for safe working. This included being able to take breaks. Staff were able to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences and could expect a response.

Staff had access to personalised support which recognised the diversity of the workforce with initiative-taking and reactive measures, including support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

Staff felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. Staff had opportunities to contribute to service development.

The provider and local leaders ensured that staff with protected characteristics felt included and respected within the service. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

The provider recognised and celebrated staff success within the service through initiatives such as staff awards, highlighting individual achievements in newsletters, and promoting a culture of recognition within the department. Managers told us they 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.