St Hugh's 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

The service ensured that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs.

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients told us their needs and preferences were taken into account. The service used patient surveys and online platforms to obtain feedback on the care provided. Patients gave positive feedback about how they were treated by staff.

Staff told us they completed risk assessments and person-centred care plans were put in place where risks were identified. They were regularly reviewed and discussed with patients to enable improvements or changes to their plan of care. Care records we looked at showed person-centred care plans were in place that took into account people’s individual needs and preferences.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. We saw staff understood their needs and provided appropriate care and treatment.

Staff received mandatory training in equality and diversity, dementia awareness and learning disability and autism. Records showed that compliance was above the target for all staff groups.

Staff told us how they made reasonable adjustments for patients based on their specific needs. This included the patient being able to visit the ward prior to admission. This was identified at the preoperative assessment stage and further questions were asked about what the patient needed.

Staff told us that they had meetings to plan and prepare for any reasonable adjustments that patients required.

The service understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

St Hughs Hospital was committed to providing care for people in the local area. They understood the local demographic and wanted to provide care close to home for patients.

The outpatient’s optimization project had meant that fewer patients were cancelled and were both medically and psychologically prepared for surgery.

People could access the hospital through insurance, self-pay and could also choose the hospital through electronic referral from the NHS. Pricing was clear and available to patients to enable them to make informed choices.

The service provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients told us staff provided them with the necessary information about their care and treatment. They told us that they shared information clearly and answered any questions they had.

Information leaflets about the services were readily available in all the areas we visited. Staff told us they could provide information in different languages or other accessible formats and could access language interpreters if needed.

This service used the hospital passport about the patient so that staff could support them in the best way possible. It included information such as anxieties, likes and dislikes, interests and preferred ways to communicate.

We saw welcome posters in a variety of languages displayed. The service also had audio services for Braille users, they had access to BSL interpreting services and an induction loop was installed at reception.

Staff told us they received training in information governance and confidentiality and that they could easily access information such as care records, policies and guidance relevant to their role.

The service had an electronic performance dashboard which included information around clinical indicators such as patient safety, incidents, outcomes and complaints. We observed that information on service performance and key risks was shared with staff through team meetings and emails.

The service make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients said they felt listened to and were involved in discussions about their care and treatment. Patients spoke positively about the quality of the care and treatment they received.

The service routinely engaged with patients through a variety of methods, including surveys. Staff told us they encouraged people to provide feedback about the care and treatment they received. Patient feedback was very positive about their overall treatment journey and this was reflected in friends and family feedback.

Staff listened to and considered people’s views through patient surveys.

We observed leaflets on how to make a complaint in the reception area. Patients were encouraged to give feedback and the ward manager encouraged staff to participate in responses to complaints.

Staff told us they discussed information about complaints during daily huddles and routine staff meetings. We reviewed a range of meeting minutes with complaints on the agenda. These included ward and theatre meetings, clinical governance and medical advisory committee (MAC) meetings. Staff followed guidance outlined in the provider’s complaints policy when handling complaints, including unresolved complaints. They signposted these to external organisations such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (for NHS patients) and the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) for private funded patients.

Managers reviewed complaints, compliments and feedback to aid learning and improvement. The ward received seven complaints during 2025. Themes were around communication with staff and information provided.

The service make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The hospital provided services for NHS and private patients, over the age of 18 for both inpatient and day case surgical care. The service provided surgery across several elective specialties for NHS patients. These were on referral to treatment waiting lists. Most patients were orthopaedics under commissioning arrangements with local NHS acute trusts.

Patients told us they received treatment promptly. They did not experience long waits when they arrived for their treatment. Patients had an initial consultation to determine if they needed surgery. This was followed by a pre-operative assessment. Staff told us they planned patients’ care and treatment in advance. This meant they did not experience delays in their treatment. Services were designed to be accessible and timely for people most likely to have difficulty accessing care.

Staff told us they monitored, contacted and followed up patients who did not attend their appointments. They rescheduled their appointments promptly to ensure treatment schedules were not disrupted.

The service had an inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients admitted for treatment were generally healthy or suffered from mild systemic disease. They were considered to have a low risk of developing complications during treatment.

The service had sufficient capacity to meet peoples’ needs and performance, they worked with the local NHS provider and ICB to offer further capacity to meeting waiting list initiatives. They monitored access and flow daily to minimise any delays to patients’ care and treatment.

The service monitored waiting times from referral. Leads ensured people could access services promptly when needed. They monitored cancellations and made sure their treatments were rearranged within 28 days.

The hospital was wheelchair accessible, and a dedicated prayer room could be made available for patients, visitors and staff.

The service actively seek out and listen to information about people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff could give examples of how they respected the individual wishes of people with protected characteristics. For example, those with a disability and people with communication or language difficulties. Patients told us their needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff. The provider’s equality and diversity policy outlined equal opportunities processes. This included how staff ensured they did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

We looked at data around incidents, complaints and treatment outcomes. We identified no disparities in care, adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures. This ensured they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

The service support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Patients told us staff had discussed their long-term care and treatment plans with them and their preferences were taken into account. Staff compiled discharge information collaboratively with patients to record information about the care and treatment received. This included future information such as medication and follow up appointments.

Patients told us they had been given advice and information on how to manage at home after surgery.

Physiotherapists were involved from the earliest stage to proactively work with patients. This helped achieve the best outcomes. Patients’ length of stay was within the national average.