Nuffield Health Brentwood 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The service worked in partnership with patients to improve its provision. We saw posters displayed in the department inviting feedback, and staff encouraged patients to provide comments following their appointments. Results from the Nuffield Health Patient Satisfaction Survey (April to June 2025) showed consistently high levels of satisfaction. Comments included: “Everyone was amazing. Super friendly, efficient and I really felt well cared for,” “Very understanding, kind, helpful and respectful, making you feel safe,” and “Great care and felt listened to.”

Patients told us they were involved in discussions about their treatment and that staff explained clearly what would happen next. Patients were also given the option to choose their appointment time, the consultant/therapist, or rearrange it online to a time that suited them. Most patients we spoke with said this process was straightforward and easy to use. Those who preferred not to use the online portal reported that they could call to make arrangements and described this as simple and without difficulty.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Patients were referred into the service through clear and established pathways, including direct referrals from the NHS. Staff across different disciplines, including consultants, nurses, therapists, and administrative teams, worked collaboratively to ensure that appointments, investigations, and follow-up care were well coordinated. We observed that test results and patient records were usually available in time for consultations, enabling timely and informed clinical decision-making.

The service offered evening and weekend appointments, which patients could book and manage online, providing flexibility to attend at times that suited them. Between 2022 and 2024, the number of gynaecology appointments increased significantly by 75%. In response, the provider at the time of this inspection was recruiting a new senior physiotherapist with pelvic health expertise to help meet the growing demand.

Staff described effective communication within the department, with physiotherapists occasionally joining handovers to support a consistent and coordinated approach to patient care. Physiotherapy staff explained that outpatient records were held electronically and could be accessed by physiotherapists across Nuffield Health sites in the UK. This enabled patients to transfer their care to another location while maintaining continuity of their care journey.

However, we were told that consultants sometimes took patient notes home. Staff highlighted this as a challenge, as the absence of complete records could affect both continuity and the efficiency of care.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Translation services were available via language line to support those who did not speak English fluently. However, the service did not provide written leaflets in different languages, and easy-read versions of patient information were also not available. This limited the accessibility of information for some patients, particularly those with communication or literacy needs. During observations, staff were seen taking time to ensure that patients understood details about their appointments and treatment options, which helped mitigate some of these barriers. Results from the June 2025 Nuffield Health Patient Satisfaction Survey indicated that 95% of patients reported being advised by staff about medication side effects to watch for after discharge, demonstrating strong verbal communication and patient engagement despite the lack of accessible written materials.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Although the service had taken some steps to seek feedback, these methods did not always lead to effective learning from the responses received. The service had introduced listening events and surveys, and provided information on how to make a complaint. Patients we spoke with said they felt able to raise concerns when needed. Complaints were monitored through departmental and governance meetings and were investigated. For example, in January 2025 a complaint was submitted regarding fees not being explained during an appointment. The service apologised and sent the patient a letter outlining the charges. Some learning was identified and shared with staff, who were reminded to give clearer information about hospital fees.

Following the inspection, we requested evidence of any action plans developed in response to patient feedback. The service reported that no current action plans were in place, as recent survey results had been consistently positive.

However, review of the June 2025 patient survey highlighted some comments that indicated areas for improvement. For example, one patient stated: “It’s impossible to get through to book appointments unless we visit in person. The look and feel of the hospital does not reflect the fact this is a private facility. Waiting areas are tiny with not enough seating. Wait times for call backs are extremely high.” In addition, several other patients raised concerns about delays in receiving call backs. While overall satisfaction scores were reported as high, these issues suggested there were opportunities for the service to respond more proactively to individual concerns in order to further strengthen the patient experience.

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 service was designed to be accessible and timely for people who may have greater difficulty accessing care. Staff explained that they monitored patients who did not attend their appointments and followed up promptly to reschedule, helping to ensure treatment schedules were not disrupted. The service-maintained audits of missed appointments, recording the reasons and the actions taken by staff to provide appropriate follow up. On average, patients waited seven weeks for their first appointment, which was within the national guidelines.

Patients we spoke with told us they received appointments promptly and did not experience long waits on the day of their visit. The service applied clear inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure patients received safe and appropriate care. Patients admitted for treatment were generally in good health or had only mild systemic conditions, placing them at low risk of complications. Those with more complex needs were referred to the NHS for further assessment and treatment.

The service did not audit whether appointments started on time, although staff told us that delays were common due to consultants running late. However, leaders told us that when delays occurred, patients were informed in advance and offered the option to reschedule rather than wait for a later start.

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.

The service did not monitor data to identify whether different groups of people had varied experiences. However, actions were taken to address potential barriers and improve patient experience. For example, dementia assessments of the outpatient department had been completed to ensure the environment was suitable for patients living with dementia. All staff had undertaken training in learning disability and autism awareness. Staff recognised the barriers to care that people could face in relation to communication and understanding procedures, and they worked collaboratively to overcome these.

The provider’s equality and diversity policy set out clear processes for promoting equal opportunities. This included guidance to ensure staff did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

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.

People were supported to make decisions about their care through informed consent. Patients were given sufficient time to ask questions about their treatment and the options available to help them plan their care. The service did not provide end of life care.