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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 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 CYP nurses were passionate about their role in advocating for CYP services at the hospital. The CYP lead also reflected on previous episodes of care to ensure that the service was mindful about some of the anxieties young people experienced at pre-assessment. Once children and young people had their surgical procedure, they were admitted onto the ward, which consisted of single rooms used by both adults and children.

The service was responsive to needs of young people and the need for internet access. Children and young people had access to the hospital’s WIFI that could be moderated by parents to restrict website content.

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.

The service had good relationships with other local healthcare providers, which helped to maintain communication and ensure joined up care for patients. We saw evidence of correspondence sent to general practitioners following a surgical procedure.

Patient information, such as medical records, were stored in line with data protection and legislation requirements.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had access to translation services so that face to face sessions between staff and patients were accessible those with additional needs or for those who did not speak English as a first language. However, the service did not provide written communication, such leaflets in different languages, braille and easy-read versions of patient literature. This would limit the amount of accessible information available if a patient had additional communication or literacy needs.

Patients were sent appropriate information prior to their first attendance containing information such as the consultant or clinic they were to see, length of time for the appointment and written information on any procedures that may be performed at the first appointment.

There was information available to both children and their families on the complaints process.

The children and young people’s (CYP) nurses involved and empowered young patients and families in all aspects of care planning and decision making in a way which considered their needs and preferences. There was information available in child friendly formats to help them advocate their preferences and consent. The provider pathway documentation ensured children and young people were asked and informed about their treatment. The pre-assessment questionnaire ensured that parents and children were involved in the planning of the child’s care. Staff ensured patients and families were provided with information on the complaints process and how to complain.

Patient information, such as medical records, were stored in line with data protection and legislation requirements.

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.

The service had not received any complaints regarding children and young people’s services between July 2024 and July 2025. There was a process for monitoring complaints through the monthly governance meetings. The service also monitored feedback from patients and families. Most feedback related to hot ward rooms and the service had put fans in the rooms to mitigate this risk.

Patients we spoke with knew how to raise a complaint or concern and felt enabled to do so.

All staff we spoke with knew how to respond to a complaint and of their role within the service’s complaints process.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The children’s and young people pre-assessment room and ward areas were located on the first floor and had wheelchair accessible lifts and accessible toilet facilities for disabled patients.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients on a case-by-case basis to ensure services were accessible. Staff liaised with patients and their relatives or carers to understand what adjustments were required and the premises were accessible for patients with mobility issues.

Staff assessed patients’ needs in relation to language, hearing, sight, and mobility in advance of their attendance. Staff understood and applied a policy on meeting the information and communication needs of patients with a disability or sensory loss.

Where possible children and young people were prioritised first on theatre lists – these were all preplanned. All admissions to the service were reviewed and agreed by the consultant and a children’s and young person’s lead nurse. We saw evidence of this is in the 5 patient records that we reviewed. The service reviewed wating times to treatment through patient record reviews.

The children and young person’s lead monitored data on cancellation rates and did-not-attend rates. The CYP lead produced a monthly report of number of attendances. 62 children and young people attended for April 2025. The service did not have overnight stays.

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.

Patients could book their appointment online, visit or ring the service, enabling them to choose an appointment time that suited their needs. Patients confirmed a good availability of appointments at times that suited them.

We saw evidence that clinics ran to schedule. Staff told us if there were delays, they would speak to patients and keep them informed.

Staff we spoke with said they had received training on equality, diversity and human rights.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Appropriate discussions with patients took place to ensure they were able to make informed decisions for their future.

There were suitable systems in place to ensure safe transfer and accessibility of patient records if a patient needed to be transferred to another service for their treatment.