- Independent hospital
Nuffield Health Derby Hospital
Assessment report published 31 July 2026
Contents
Ratings - Medical care (Including older people's care)
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
We spoke to 8 patients using the service. Patients from oncology unit spoke positively about their experience of care and treatment and described staff as kind, compassionate and respectful. Patients told us they received clear, detailed explanations about their condition, procedures, risks and side effects. This was supported by written information and opportunities to ask questions. Patients felt involved in decisions about their care and said staff were flexible in adapting treatment and appointments to fit around their personal circumstances. They described staff as highly responsive, with prompt action taken when concerns were raised and timely access to advice, including out-of-hours support. Patients said staff regularly checked on their physical and emotional wellbeing and valued follow-up contact after treatment. Feedback from endoscopy patients also reflected a positive experience, with clear pre-procedure explanations, reassurance during procedures and attentive care throughout. Patients all described the environment as clean, comfortable and well organised. Many patients highlighted continuity of care, strong communication and a personalised approach as key strengths of the service. They told us staff took their individual needs and preferences into account when planning and delivering care.
Patients also described administrative processes as efficient and easy to navigate. They reported timely access to appointments and appreciated the smooth coordination of their care.