Nuffield Health Cheltenham 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

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment this key question was not rated. At this assessment we rated outpatient services as 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.

Outpatient appointments were personalised and holistic. Across the four consultations, one pre‑assessment appointment, and one treatment procedure we observed, staff took time to understand each patient’s lifestyle and circumstances, tailoring treatment plans to align with their individual needs.

We reviewed 5 patient records and saw that these included sections on ‘what is important to me’, as well as information about the surgical procedure recommended or notes from the appointment along with consent from the patient.

Daily safety huddles were used to review the patients scheduled to attend and to identify any additional needs, allowing reasonable adjustments to be planned in advance. This included arranging extra support for wheelchair users or booking interpretation services when required. Staff used a telephone translation service for people whose first language was not English.

Staff also described making further adjustments for people with mental health needs or a learning disability, such as providing access to a quiet area to help reduce anxiety and support engagement.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always 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. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking, and wider quality‑improvement activity. As a national provider operating multiple hospitals, the organisation used comparative data across its sites to benchmark performance and identify areas for development. It also gathered feedback from a range of external customer‑review platforms to support ongoing improvement. A structured audit programme had been set out for the year.

Staff followed up‑to‑date policies to plan and deliver high‑quality care in line with best practice and national guidance. Policies were developed and reviewed centrally by the provider and were easily accessible through the hospital’s system. New policies and standard operating procedures were discussed with staff during meetings. Our review of outpatient meeting minutes showed clear records of these discussions when new policies were introduced.

Staff planned and delivered people's care and treatment in collaboration with the service users. We saw staff discussed treatment options with patients, and there was collaboration between staff and patient to agree treatment plans.

The medical advisory committee met regularly to oversee patient safety, quality of care and regulatory compliance. It reviewed incidents and adverse events, as well as mortality and morbidity data, to identify areas for improvement and strengthen patient safety.

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

The service demonstrated effective collaboration with wider hospital teams. There were daily heads-of-department meetings to exchange information, which was then cascaded to staff. Outpatient team meetings were held regularly and there had been recent changes to the structure allowing staff who were not working to attend by video conferencing. The meetings were recorded so staff could also watch these if they were unable to attend. On each shift there was a staff member identified as the paediatric life support lead and the bleep holder.

Consultants spoke positively about working at the hospital. Clear systems allowed them to easily identify their allocated room and review the number of patients booked for each clinic. Staff were scheduled to support consultants in advance, helping clinics run smoothly. However, consultants commented on the lack of health care assistant capacity. This would be addressed on the appointment of new staff.

The teams had effective working relationships with each other and with other specialist teams, and most staff we spoke with reported good teamwork. We saw staff being moved between the wards to support outpatients when capacity allowed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and well-being 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 provided a range of written information to support people attending outpatient appointments, including guidance on recovery following specific surgical procedures. In addition, the provider offered free public education events where consultants delivered talks on various health conditions, such as women’s and men’s health and cardiology. The service also provided patients with clear information on how to pre‑optimise for surgery, helping them understand the steps they could take to improve their health and readiness ahead of their procedure.

The service had a range of health promotion information available on the provider’s website. This included mental health, men’s health, women’s health, and cancer awareness. Private health assessments were available to patients who were able to pay.

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.

Patients were seen in a timely manner. The NHS Constitution states that people should wait no longer than 18 weeks for non‑urgent referrals and no longer than 2 weeks for suspected cancer. The service only carried out a small amount of work for the NHS which was approximately 5% of its overall work. Staff told us that patients did not experience long waits to be seen in outpatients, and patients confirmed that the service had been proactive in providing them with prompt appointments. Patients were satisfied with their care and the service received only a small number of complaints.

Clinic availability was closely monitored by the bookings team. If a consultant had a long waiting list, extra clinic slots were offered to the consultant to help patients be seen in a timely manner. Patients were able to contact the service to rebook appointments or cancel them if that is what the patient wished. If the cancellation was made due to consultant availability, the patient would have a new appointment booked as near to the original booking as possible. Bookings were discussed at capacity meetings which were held twice a week.

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.

Patients were supported to give informed consent before receiving treatment. Our review of patient records showed that consent had been gained and documented for all patients. Those we spoke with also confirmed they had been asked for consent whenever required.

The service routinely audited consent documentation, demonstrating strong compliance. In the two most recent audits, completed in May and September 2025, the service achieved scores of 93% and 96% respectively, indicating consistently good practice.

All staff had up to date mandatory training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLs). Staff understood how to assess whether patients had capacity to make informed decisions about their care.

The service had policies detailing the consent process. We observed staff requesting verbal consent and explaining what actions they were taking.