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 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.

Patients told us their needs and preferences were taken into account. The service used patient satisfaction surveys and held 6 monthly patient forums to gather patient feedback. Patients gave positive feedback about staff and their care.

Staff told us how they made reasonable adjustments for specific patient needs and allowed family members to stay with patients if requested. Rooms could be made dementia friendly or adjusted to meet sensory needs. All areas were accessible by wheelchair and had accessible toilets.

Patients were involved in arranging their surgery dates and asked about suitable times. If clinically safe, patients can delay treatment until a time that suits them. Consultants had provided additional dates on weekends to accommodate some patient requirements. Patients received text reminders of appointments to ensure attendance and allow time for cancellations.

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.

The hospital held daily huddles to plan care, discuss risks and ensure patient pathways were planned appropriately.

Patients could access the hospital through self-pay, insurance and in some cases via NHS waiting list initiatives. There was a clear booking process. Private patients were given a provisional surgery date at the time of their outpatient appointment and NHS patients were booked following pre-assessment.

The booking team worked closely with local NHS trusts to ensure appropriate referrals were made and liaised regarding availability of appointments and surgery dates.

The hospital had a clear transfer out agreement and processes with the NHS in the case of deteriorating patients. Organisations worked collaboratively to provide safe joined up care.

Discharge summaries were sent to the patients GP following surgery.

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 were provided with information leaflets prior to surgery and given the opportunity to ask any questions in their outpatient appointment. Patients told us 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.

Patient records were stored in a locked cupboard behind a staffed desk. The leadership team told us they were working towards an electronic patient record system in the near future.

Patients told us they were provided with information to support their discharge and what to expect. The physiotherapy team gave advise on exercise and rehabilitation following surgery to ensure safe discharge and recovery. Patients were provided with contact details if there were any concerns following discharge.

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.

Patients could raise concerns or provide feedback in a range of ways, including using the QR codes displayed on site or completing patient satisfaction surveys. We saw posters guiding patients on the process and directing them to the person in charge or duty manager to discuss concerns.

During our assessment we spoke to 5 patients and asked if they were aware of how to provide feedback or make a complaint. 4 patients said they were unaware of the process and not provided with information, but said “I would talk to a nurse,” or “it would be easy to figure out from posters and the website.”

In the last 12 months there were 28 complaints. 7 were upheld and 8 partially upheld. No complaints were referred to the ombudsman or ISCAS (independent complaints advocacy service.) Staff were aware of the complaints process and investigations were effective and included the appropriate people.

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 Hospital provided services for private and NHS patients. There were no long waits for surgery and rarely any cancellations. If there were cancellations due to staff sickness, patients were rebooked as soon as possible. Consultants often provided additional capacity to ensure patients didn’t wait a long time. For the year April 2025 to March 2026 there were 41 cancellations on the day of surgery, of which 31 were rebooked.

Staff told us that occasionally theatre slots would overrun and the team would work late to accommodate any delays. Patients were kept up to date about delays and estimated theatre slot times.

Waiting lists were well managed by the booking team, who provided patients with available slots to suit both them and the clinical team. Additional theatre sessions were run on weekends to accommodate NHS waiting list initiatives and sometimes private patients.

There was a discharge policy including guidance for carers and a post discharge enquiries form to be completed if patients telephoned with concerns following surgery. Discharges were planned ahead and only delayed due to clinical reasons.

Staff rotas had enough cover for both day and night shifts, with on call clinicians available to contact at anytime. The resident doctor could be woken at any point to support the nursing team.

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 pre-operative assessment identified patients who required extra support. Staff ensured appropriate adjustments were made and peoples needs were met. Staff levels were planned in advance to increase staff to patient ratio. People who used the service said they had their needs and preferences met. They were treated with equality and in a non-discriminatory way.

There was evidence that staff had undertaken equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training as part of their mandatory bullying and harassment training. All permanent staff had completed the training, and 88% of bank staff were also compliant. Staff told us how they made changes to support patients and ensure they are comfortable and their needs are met.

The Nuffield health website had detailed values and information around creating an inclusive culture.

Data provided by the service regarding incidents and complaints did not identify adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics.

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.

Staff were aware of patients DNACPR status and any decisions about their care and treatment. Patients had personalised care plans and were involved in planning their discharge with a multidisciplinary team. Relatives and next of kin were involved in planning for patients with complex needs.

Patients were given information about future appointments, medication and what to look out for following discharge. They were given contact numbers to call if they had any concerns or wanted to ask further questions.

Detailed information was provided about pre and post-surgery in preassessment and again following surgery to ensure patients had all the necessary information.