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

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. For example, we observed a nurse explaining a change in medication and to delay taking one tablet until after they had eaten to avoid nausea.
We spoke to 4 patients during the assessment. They all said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. For example, handover was conducted in the staff room to avoid patients and relatives overhearing sensitive confidential information.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure 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.

The service made reasonable adjustments for patients. For example, patients with learning difficulties or early onset dementia, who may benefit from a quieter environment, were offered appointments at the beginning or end of the day. Endoscopy staff told us about an 18 year old patient who was anxious, and staff had ensured that their parents were allowed to wait with them until they were taken in for their procedure.

The hospital had an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (ED&I) Policy and standard operating procedure (SOP). This detailed mandatory training and the promotion of fairness and equality for all staff. We requested examples of changes made to support diversity and inclusion of staff in the last 12 months, but we were not provided with any examples or evidence.

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.

Consent was sought by staff prior to carrying out any care or treatment. Patients were initially consented by the clinician in the outpatient appointment. A second consent was carried out the day of surgery to ensure that patients were happy with the planned surgery and procedure.

Patients we spoke with told us that they had been given adequate time to discuss all options and these were explained in detail prior to the day of admission.

Within Endoscopy, staff told us that the option of gas and air (Entonox), local aesthetic or sedation was discussed at POA. This was always reviewed in consultation with the patient again at the team brief prior to commencement of the procedure.

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 were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care was planned for these accordingly. These were documented in the care record by staff at the POA appointment. Where risk was identified, a patient pre-operative advanced notification sheet was completed and sent to the ward. These were reviewed in advance and specialist equipment, or adjustments were made to minimise risk prior to the planned admission date. For example, we saw staff preparing a room adapted with red fittings for a dementia patient. This was being prepared and allocated in advance to ensure the environment was best suited to their needs.

Staff responded promptly to patients' discomfort and concerns following procedures. In one instance, they explained that a mild anaesthetic spray temporarily affected the patient's ability to swallow safely. The patient was reassured that this was normal, and a drink was provided once it was safe to do so.

Call bells were answered promptly when used by patients.

The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff told us that they were given 2 wellbeing days a year and had access to counselling. They were also offered gym membership to Nuffield Health gyms and felt that these incentives supported their well being.

The Nuffield Health uniform policy promoted equality and diversity, ensuring they did not discriminate against any individual based on protected characteristics. For example, uniform was available to order in three quarter length sleeves for staff who required them for religious or faith reasons.

Staff could receive a “We CARE” award nomination from colleagues in recognition for positive feedback or contribution made and sent by the senior management team. We were provided with an example of a letter being sent to the supplies team in June 2025.

Most staff we spoke with felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working with their team. Staff told us they were supported to go on their breaks and resident medical officers told us they were supported if they had not been able to rest overnight. However, some staff did report that they felt stressed, were not able to give patients the time they needed to assess their needs, and concerns raised to senior managers were not acted upon. They felt this had a direct impact on their ability to deliver person centred care as their workload was high and not all staff were working together. For example, staff reported departments working in silo and not communicating effectively, leading to frustration.

Administration staff reported they no longer received practical basic life support training. As a result, they did not have the essential knowledge and skills to respond effectively to life-threatening emergencies, particularly cardiac arrest. This meant that areas such as the main reception were reliant on clinical staff from other departments to respond and support in an emergency.

Prior to the assessment we received anonymous whistleblowing reporting a lack of supportive senior management. Some staff we spoke to during and following the onsite assessment told us that senior managers and some consultants were not respectful and supportive when they raised concerns and at times they feared retribution. This behaviour was evidenced in April 2025 rapid review meeting minutes, where a patient reported their consultant was rude and dismissive towards them and a nurse.