Mount Gould Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed 2 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of good practice. There were processes to make sure people could access the service. Interpretation and translation services were available to support people with individual communication needs. They provided information to people in line with standards. Staff understood their responsibilities when providing information to people. There were specially trained staff available to support people with individual needs during their appointment.

This service scored 21 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People using the service said that they had received adequate information about their appointment. Friends and family test results showed most people received enough information about their X-ray and how they would receive test results. One person said, ‘they communicated what was happening to me: Very helpful’.

Staff knew their roles and responsibilities when providing information. They knew how to identify patient’s individual needs on the service’s electronic booking system and said that they had access to communication tools and specialist staff to support. Staff understood the importance of interpreters for service users who required them. Staff understood the importance of protecting patient’s data and told us how they followed policies to ensure this happened.

The service had up-to-date processes and policies to provide accessible information in line with standards. There was a process to review policies and information in line with relevant standards such as General Data Protection Regulations and The Accessible Information Standard. The service had not reported any incidents of data breaches. The booking process identified people’s individual needs which enabled appointment letters to be sent in a suitable format or language. The service had a process to book interpreters prior to appointments. Service user letters contained information about their appointment along with a leaflet detailing how X-ray imaging works and associated radiation risks. Referrers received scan results securely and were responsible for providing results.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People said they were satisfied accessing the service. People said they had received an appointment in line with their expectations or sooner. People said, ‘easy access and pleasant staff.’, ‘well organised with staff sensitive to my needs.’, and ‘easy to access through the main hospital, staff were helpful throughout the appointment.’.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in making the service accessible. They were aware of exclusion criteria and the process to follow should a patient attend an appointment who was not suitable for X-ray. Staff said they could access specially trained dementia, autism, and learning disability nursing staff to support during appointments if required. Staff discussed service access during performance meetings and had action plans to make improvements.

The service had clear criteria for making appointments. The service was not suitable for bariatric patients due to equipment availability. Service users who did not meet booking criteria were offered appointments at one of the trust’s other locations more suited to their needs. The environment was accessible for people using the service. The service was clearly signposted with a main hospital reception desk directing people as required. There was step-free access across the site with wheelchairs available. The service monitored wait times and non-attendance rates. Patients who did not attend an appointment were contacted and rebooked depending on the urgency of the scan. Patients who required a quiet environment were given appointments at times when the service was not expected to be busy. The service’s booking team worked with others to support people. They had processes to work with local authority teams to support people accessing the service should they have no fixed address.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.