Nuffield Health Brentwood Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment the key question was not rated. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

During daily safety huddles, staff reviewed the list of patients due to attend and identified any additional needs, ensuring reasonable adjustments were planned. For example, this included arranging healthcare assistant support for wheelchair users or interpretation services where required. Staff told us that if a patient attended with mental health needs or a learning disability, they would make reasonable adjustments, such as offering a quiet room.

When access or communication needs had not been identified in advance, staff made efforts to respond on the day, such as arranging interpreters at short notice.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff provided care in line with up-to-date policies, best practice, and national guidance. Departmental processes reflected national standards, including NHS England’s National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs), and physiotherapy staff were registered with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP).

Policies were developed and reviewed centrally by the provider and were accessible on the hospital’s system.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service demonstrated effective collaboration with wider hospital teams. Clinical service manager held regular heads-of-department meetings to exchange information, which was then cascaded to staff. Team members confirmed they attended monthly meetings where updates, learning, and key messages were shared, ensuring good communication across the service.

When patients requested to transfer back to an NHS trust, the physiotherapy team prepared a comprehensive referral pack. This included key contact numbers for the patient, a completed referral form, and relevant clinical notes, which were forwarded directly to the NHS trust to support continuity of care.

Staff also described a flexible and supportive approach to teamwork. For example, when the housekeeping team experienced particularly high workloads, healthcare assistants would assist with cleaning tasks to help maintain standards of hygiene and patient experience.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service supported people in managing their health and wellbeing, encouraging healthier lifestyles and, where possible, reducing future needs for care and support.

In the outpatient department, we observed noticeboard displays providing health education on a range of topics. These included information about the causes of certain conditions and practical steps people could take to manage them, such as adopting a healthier diet and increasing physical activity. Staff also explained that, where appropriate, they encouraged patients who smoked to reduce or stop. They highlighted the impact of smoking on recovery, noting that surgical wounds often heal more slowly in people who smoke.

The service further promoted health awareness through free public events advertised on its website. At these sessions, consultants delivered two-hour talks on specific health specialities. A patient told us, “I went to one of these events where I got to listen to a consultant talk for 2 hours and it made me think about my heart health.”

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service carried out a range of audits to monitor the quality of care it provided and identify areas for improvement. For example, one audit highlighted a significant increase in the number of gynaecology and urology patients attending outpatient clinics. This evidence was then used to build a business case for recruiting an additional full-time senior physiotherapist specialising in pelvic health, ensuring the service could continue to meet patient demand and provide timely, specialist support.

Further details about how the hospital monitored and improved outcomes for patients can be found in the surgery report.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We reviewed patient records and found that consent was appropriately documented. In addition, we observed staff members obtaining informed consent during patient interactions. For example, in one appointment we observed, the consultant asked permission to examine the patient’s arm, and the patient willingly extended their arm in agreement. Physiotherapy staff explained that when a patient was new, they were asked to provide written consent, which was retained in the records. For subsequent sessions, staff sought and recorded verbal consent, ensuring that the process remained ongoing and appropriate to each stage of care.

In July 2025, 95% of staff had completed their training on Mental Capacity Act, meeting the service’s compliance target. Consent was monitored through the Outpatient Care Record Audit, which included checks such as whether the correct consent form was used, whether it was signed, printed, and dated, and whether the relationship was recorded if the patient was a child. Among the 10 patient records audited between June 2025 and July 2025, compliance with consent documentation averaged 98.3%.