Nuffield Health Brentwood 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 at 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.

We found that the service treated people with kindness. Staff introduced themselves to patients and were described as approachable, supportive, and helpful by patients. This was reflected in the June 2025 patient survey, where 99% of respondents reported that they felt treated with respect and dignity while in the hospital. The environment supported privacy. Rooms were designed to allow private discussions, were clearly marked when in use to prevent intrusion, and patients were offered the option of a chaperone. In the same survey, 97% of patients confirmed they had been given sufficient privacy when discussing their condition or treatment.

Staff told us they felt part of a positive and supportive team within outpatients and reported that they enjoyed working at the hospital.

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.

We observed that staff treated patients as individuals and adapted their approach to meet each person’s needs. For example, during one appointment, a healthcare assistant supported a patient using a wheelchair to the consultation room and offered an additional cushion to ensure their comfort. Staff demonstrated sensitivity to patients’ concerns, tailoring both their communication and care accordingly.

The service had a range of provisions in place to support accessibility and inclusion. A hearing loop was available at reception; however, the service did not provide information leaflets in alternative formats, such as different languages, Braille, or large print. Senior leaders also told us that therapy and guide dogs were permitted on the premises. In addition, the department had access to religious and cultural resources, including a multi-faith room equipped with materials from various religious traditions, which patients and staff could use for reflection or prayer.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and human rights, as well as dementia and autism awareness, which formed part of the mandatory training programme. This supported staff to provide care that was person-centred, inclusive, and responsive to individual needs.

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 provided patients with clear information about what to expect before treatment and how to prepare appropriately. We observed medical and nursing staff taking time to explain treatment options in a way that was easy to understand, checking patients’ understanding, and ensuring they felt informed.

During appointments, doctors engaged patients in discussions about their treatment options and worked collaboratively to agree care plans. For example, one consultant used a model and visual aids to support explanations and sought patients’ views to confirm their understanding. This demonstrated an approach that promoted shared decision-making and patient involvement.

Patients told us they were also given written information to take home, which supported them to reflect on discussions and make informed choices. In one observation, a staff nurse explained each step of a wound dressing change as it was carried out, which reassured the patient and helped them remain informed and involved in their care.

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 responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress. We observed a patient who expressed anxiety about waiting for their appointment. The healthcare assistant acknowledged the patient’s concerns and offered reassurance, before speaking with the consultant to explore whether the patient could be seen sooner.

The environment also supported comfort and convenience, with hot drink machines and water coolers available in waiting areas for patients and relatives. Where people were required to stay in the department longer than expected, staff offered refreshments, ensuring patients felt cared for and their basic needs were met.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The service did not consistently care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff, nor did it always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The service had established a national employee forum that provided staff with a structured way to raise concerns and share feedback. Locally, the forum met on a monthly basis and had introduced “You said, we did” actions, which were displayed on staff noticeboards. Outpatient staff told us that this initiative had increased their confidence to speak up and had supported the development of a more open and transparent culture.

However, some staff also highlighted concerns about how different staff groups were treated. For example, staff reported that housekeeping staff did not have access to certain benefits available to medical staff, such as overtime pay for weekend shifts. Staff told us they had raised these concerns through the appropriate channels.

Following the inspection, we requested the most recent staff survey results. The evidence submitted was limited and lacked sufficient detail, as it did not include the survey methodology, the range of questions asked, or analysis to demonstrate why staff may have expressed satisfaction in particular areas. This reduced our ability to fully assess the depth of staff engagement and the extent to which feedback was acted upon. Despite these limitations, the survey data indicated that outpatient staff did not always feel their contributions were recognised or celebrated when they delivered good work. Following the inspection, we requested action plans from the past three months relating to outpatients; however, this issue had not been identified by leaders, as no actions relating to staff recognition were found.