Nuffield Health Derby Hospital

Updated 31 July 2026

We completed an inspection of Nuffield Health Derby Hospital on 25 March 2026. We inspected 2 assessment service groups, medicine and surgery.

The hospital forms part of the Nuffield Health network of independent acute hospitals. It first opened in October 1981 and delivers care and treatment to both NHS‑funded and self‑funded patients, serving Derby and the surrounding communities.

The site includes 3 theatres, 38 single‑occupancy inpatient rooms, a chemotherapy unit, outpatient services, a physiotherapy department, radiology department and pharmacy.

The hospital provides a broad range of surgical services and medical procedures.

Prior to our inspection medicine was rated as requires improvement and surgery was rated as good. Following this inspection both services are now rated as good.

Updated 8 December 2025

Nuffield Health Derby Hospital is an independent acute hospital providing a range of services. We inspected the medical care assessment service group (ASG). This included endoscopy and oncology services.

The endoscopy service sat within the theatre department at this location. The service was consultant-led and supported by a multidisciplinary team, including nursing, theatre and support staff.

Oncology services were delivered through a dedicated unit, providing systemic anti-cancer therapy and supportive care. The service cared for patients with a range of conditions and worked closely with consultants, specialist services and external partners to support continuity of care.

Services were provided to privately paying patients, those using private medical insurance, and NHS-funded patients through contractual arrangements.

The inspection took place on 25 and 26 March 2026. This was a comprehensive inspection as the service was last inspected in 2015 and had not been assessed under the single assessment framework before.

At the last inspection in 2015, the service was rated requires improvement. At this inspection, the service was rated good. Areas identified for improvement at the previous inspection had been addressed. During this inspection, we found systems and processes had improved, and there were no breaches of regulation identified.

We spoke with 14 staff across a range of roles, including nurses, managers, senior leaders, consultants, a resident doctor, domestic staff and reception staff. We spoke with eight patients and reviewed three patient records in the oncology unit. We did not review patient records for endoscopy services, as there was no endoscopy list available at the time of the inspection.

As services at this location were closely interlinked, some evidence and supporting details are included in the separate surgery inspection report. Where this is the case, we will state this under the relevant quality statement.

Safe:

The service prioritised patient safety through a strong and embedded culture of openness, learning and accountability. Staff were confident in reporting incidents and raising concerns. There were clear systems in place to investigate incidents and share learning across teams. Risks to patients were effectively identified, assessed and managed through structured governance processes and clear escalation pathways. Safeguarding arrangements were well embedded, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities. The service maintained safe, clean and well-equipped environments, supported by effective infection prevention and control arrangements and national standards. Staffing levels were appropriate, and staff were trained, competent and supported to deliver safe care.

Effective:

The service ensured patients received effective care and treatment through comprehensive assessment, evidence-based practice and ongoing review of their needs. Staff worked collaboratively with patients to plan and deliver care that reflected their health, wellbeing and communication needs. This included detailed assessments and regular monitoring to respond to changes in patients’ condition. Care was delivered in line with national guidance and recognised standards, with staff using structured tools and pathways to support consistent practice. Multidisciplinary working was embedded, supporting continuity and coordinated care across services. Outcomes were monitored through audit and governance processes, and patients were supported to manage their health and make informed decisions through clear information and consent processes.

Caring:

Patients were consistently treated with kindness, compassion and respect, and their privacy and dignity were maintained throughout their care. Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach, taking time to listen to patients, understand their individual needs and provide emotional as well as physical support. Patients described staff as attentive, reassuring and approachable, and said they felt involved in decisions about their care. Staff tailored care to meet individual needs, including providing additional reassurance, adapting communication and making reasonable adjustments for those with additional needs. Patients also told us staff responded promptly to concerns, minimising discomfort and distress. A supportive staff culture enabled teams to deliver compassionate care in a consistent and meaningful way.

Responsive:

The service placed patients at the centre of how care was planned and delivered, ensuring services were responsive to individual needs and preferences. Staff worked proactively to understand patients’ needs in advance and made adjustments to support accessibility, comfort and positive experiences. Care was coordinated across teams and with external partners, supporting continuity and seamless transitions between services. Patients received clear, accessible information in formats that met their needs, enabling them to understand their care and participate in decisions. The service encouraged feedback and actively involved patients in shaping and improving services. Overall, care was flexible, well organised and delivered in a way that met the diverse needs of people using the service.

Well-led:

Leadership within the service promoted a positive, inclusive and collaborative culture focused on patient-centred care, safety and continuous improvement. Leaders were visible, approachable and supportive, with a clear understanding of the clinical and operational context of the service. Staff felt able to raise concerns, contribute ideas and participate in improvement activities, reflecting a culture of openness and psychological safety. Governance systems provided effective oversight of quality, safety and performance, with learning from incidents, audits and feedback used to drive improvement. The service demonstrated a commitment to innovation and development, including initiatives to enhance patient wellbeing and the use of digital tools to support care monitoring and personalisation. Overall, leadership supported the delivery of good quality, sustainable care and continuous service improvement.

Updated 8 December 2025

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of surgery on 25 March 2026 due to aged ratings. The service had not been inspected since 2016 and was previously rated as good. We inspected all quality statements across the five key questions: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

The service offered a range of surgical procedures including orthopaedic and gynaecology procedures for NHS and self funding patients. The hospital has 2 laminar flow orthopaedic operating theatres (specialised operating theatres designed to keep the air clean using a continuous flow of filtered air), 1 standard operating theatre and four recovery bays. There is 1 ward with 38 private ensuite rooms.

Nuffield Health Derby treated a small number of children between the ages of 16 and 18. These patients are assessed by the Pre-assessment Team & deemed appropriate for care to be delivered on an adult pathway. The service is supported by another Nuffield Hospital that provides a children’s service and would be contacted for advice should any concerns arise re appropriateness of the patient being treated on an adult pathway and further assessment done. The quality of care and treatment of children aged between 16 and 18 years of age undergoing surgical procedures was not reviewed as part of the inspection of surgery.

Leaders were highly capable and had fostered a positive, shared culture where staff were well supported to deliver person‑centred care. The service had comprehensive and effective systems of governance that enabled leaders to quickly respond to information about risk and work collaboratively with other stakeholders. We also observed warm compassionate clinical interactions between staff and patients that were delivered in a clean and mostly safe environment.

However, we found a breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment which related to the management of medicines. This was raised with the provider on the day of inspection and they took immediate action to begin to rectify this.

Safe:

The service demonstrated a strong learning culture where both staff and patients felt able to raise concerns. Managers carried out thorough investigations into incidents, ensuring lessons were learned and improvements were identified and shared with staff. Patients were kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding procedures and followed established safe working practices.

There were enough staff with the appropriate skills, qualifications and experience across departments, wards and theatres to deliver high quality care and treatment. Managers ensured staff received the necessary training and regular appraisals to maintain high standards.

Staff handled medicines safely and responded promptly to any unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. They were aware of environmental risks and managed them effectively. Facilities and equipment met patient needs, were clean and well maintained, and any identified risks were addressed.

Effective:

The service ensured patients received effective care and treatment through comprehensive assessment, evidence-based practice and ongoing review of their needs. Staff worked collaboratively with patients to plan and deliver care that reflected their health, wellbeing and communication needs. This included detailed assessments and regular monitoring to respond to changes in patients’ condition. Care was delivered in line with national guidance and recognised standards, with staff using structured tools and pathways to support consistent practice. Multidisciplinary working was embedded, supporting continuity and coordinated care across services. Outcomes were monitored through audit and governance processes, and patients were supported to manage their health and make informed decisions through clear information and consent processes.

Caring:

Patients were consistently treated with kindness, compassion and respect, and their privacy and dignity was maintained throughout their care. Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach, taking time to listen to patients, understand their individual needs and provide emotional as well as physical support. Patients described staff as attentive, reassuring and approachable. They said they felt involved in decisions about their care. Staff tailored care to meet individual needs, including providing additional reassurance, adapting communication and making reasonable adjustments for those with additional needs.

Responsive:

The service placed patients at the centre of how care was planned and delivered, ensuring services were responsive to individual needs and preferences. Staff worked proactively to understand patients’ needs in advance and made adjustments to support accessibility, comfort and positive experiences. Care was coordinated across teams and with external partners, supporting continuity and seamless transitions between services. Patients received clear, accessible information in formats that met their needs, enabling them to understand their care and participate in decisions. The service encouraged feedback and actively involved patients in shaping and improving services. Overall, care was flexible, well organised and delivered in a way that met the diverse needs of people using the service.

Well-led:

Leadership within the service promoted a positive, inclusive and collaborative culture focused on patient-centred care, safety and continuous improvement. Leaders were visible, approachable and supportive, with a clear understanding of the clinical and operational context of the service. Staff felt able to raise concerns, contribute ideas and participate in improvement activities, reflecting a culture of openness and psychological safety. Governance systems provided effective oversight of quality, safety and performance, with learning from incidents, audits and feedback used to drive improvement. The service demonstrated a commitment to innovation and development, including initiatives to enhance patient wellbeing and the use of digital tools to support care monitoring and personalisation. Overall, leadership supported the delivery of good quality, sustainable care and continuous service improvement.

Updated 6 May 2016

There were reliable systems, processes and practices in place to protect patients from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks to patients were appropriately assessed and care and treatment was delivered following evidence based guidance. The hospital had access to a radiation protection supervisor and radiation protection adviser in accordance with the ionising radiation (medical exposure) regulations. Practices and systems were in accordance with the legislation.

Care delivered by the hospital staff was in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Consent to care and treatment was obtained in accordance with legislation and guidance.

Patients told us that they were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in their care.

Staff were appropriately qualified to provide effective care and treatment. However, we found not all staff had completed safeguarding adults (level two) training or training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Patients had timely access to appointments and treatments. Leaflets were visible on how to make a complaint and patients felt confident that they could discuss their concerns with staff.

We witnessed supportive management and a culture of teamwork throughout the department. Staff were proud of the service that they provided and enjoyed working at the hospital.