Nuffield Health Cheltenham 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 this key question was not rated. At this assessment we rated outpatient services as 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.

Care was planned effectively, and staff took patients’ individual needs and preferences into account when arranging appointments. Patients were actively involved in arranging their surgery dates and were asked about times that suited their personal circumstances. Where clinically required, patients were able to delay treatment to a time that worked best for them. Consultants also offered additional weekend appointments to accommodate individual needs. Patients received text reminders for upcoming appointments, helping to support attendance and giving sufficient notice for cancellations when necessary.

Patients were given clear, upfront information about fees. Costs were explained during telephone bookings, followed by written confirmation sent by post, and were reiterated again at outpatient appointments. This meant patients had multiple opportunities to review and consider the charges before proceeding with treatment. Patients who did not attend their appointments remained liable for the associated fees.

Patients told us they were actively involved in decisions about their treatment and felt well informed about both the care they were due to receive, and the care already provided. Our observations of outpatient appointments reflected this.

Patients told us they were involved in discussions about their treatment and that staff explained clearly what would happen next. One patient commented that the service was “excellent, on time, organised and professional”.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Patients were referred into the service through clear and established pathways. Patients could self-refer, be referred by GPs or by direct referrals from the NHS. Patients were seen by the same consultant throughout their care journey. Patients were supported by staff pre and post-surgery.

Staff ensured that patients who did not attend their appointments were contacted to arrange an alternative date. The service had up‑to‑date policies and procedures for managing patients who did not attend, supporting a consistent and safe approach.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients reported that communication from staff was clear, comprehensive, and highly valued. Feedback gathered through the patient forum highlighted that procedures and aftercare were explained in detail, with staff allowing sufficient time for patients to understand the information and ask questions.

Patients were provided with information leaflets prior to surgery and given the opportunity to ask any questions in their outpatient appointment. Patients told us that they had “Very thorough explanations,” and “plenty” of information was provided. Staff ensured patients were prepared for surgery and recovery via the pre-optimisation programme.

There was a range of information available to patients for their medical condition, some provided by the service and others by individual consultants. The service had a website where patients could access relevant information. The service had aids to help people with their communication needs such as a hearing loop induction.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Accessible Information is about providing appropriate information and communication support to individuals with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss. We saw information could be provided in different languages and there were processes to use should a person using services require translation services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

We observed several outpatient appointments during which patients were given the opportunity to ask questions. Consultants provided clear explanations about proposed treatments, available options, and associated risks and benefits. Where relevant, they also discussed any costs for patients choosing to access private treatment.

Patients reported that they felt able to raise concerns with staff. Team leaders made efforts to address any issues promptly as they arose. Over the past year, the service received 4 formal complaints, all of which were appropriately investigated, resolved, and used to identify learning. Three of these complaints were related to phlebotomy, which recorded the highest number of incidents.

The service had a patient forum, which demonstrated that patients’ views were formally considered and used to inform the development and improvement of both the service and the hospital’s facilities.

Patients were able to provide feedback or raise concerns through a variety of channels, including QR codes displayed on site and patient satisfaction surveys. We saw posters advising patients on how to raise concerns and directing them to the person in charge or duty manager. Information about how to make a complaint was also available on the provider’s national website, with options to contact the service via an online form or by telephone.

Patients could escalate unresolved complaints to an external organisation, such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for NHS-funded care, or to an independent sector complaints service. Information about these escalation routes was clearly available.

We scored the service as 3. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it.

Waiting times were short for those eligible to use the service. While some NHS-funded work was undertaken, most activity involved privately insured or self-funding patients. The bookings team routinely reviewed surgical waiting lists and identified consultants whose lists required additional attention and arranged extra clinics where needed.

Access to the service was appropriate for patients assessed as medically suitable. Facilities included disabled toilets, full wheelchair accessibility, and level access throughout the building, which was located on a single floor. Lifts were also available for patients needing to access other areas.

Post-treatment support was available, including physiotherapy and wound care follow-up appointments after surgery. During outpatient consultations, we observed consultants reassuring patients that they could contact them directly if they had any concerns following their procedure.

Patient feedback regarding access to the service was positive. Members of the patient forum highlighted the efficiency of the service, commenting on prompt appointment scheduling and streamlined hospital processes.

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.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), which formed part of their mandatory bullying and harassment training. Completion rates were strong, with 93% of staff having undertaken this training. The programme was supported by the organisation’s EDI policy, which outlined its commitment to fostering a fair, inclusive and equitable workplace.

Managers had access to the national People Services team for advice on any EDI‑related matters. The service also operated a clear zero‑tolerance policy towards discrimination, harassment and victimisation in any form, reinforcing its commitment to a safe and respectful working environment.

The policies we reviewed had a process to check if the service discriminated against protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010. Each policy had an equality and diversity declaration to show the policy had been reviewed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes so they had 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. Patients were encouraged to contact the service if they had any questions or concerns.