Nuffield Health Derby Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that patients were treated with kindness, empathy and respect, and that their privacy and dignity were maintained.

Patients were consistently treated with kindness and compassion. Patients told us staff were attentive, reassuring and took time to explain care clearly. Privacy and dignity were respected, and people felt emotionally supported.

Staff treated patients as individuals and involved them in decisions about their care. Patients felt listened to and said care was adapted to meet their needs and preferences. Staff responded promptly to concerns and minimised discomfort and distress.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good. Patients were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and their feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 4. The service was exceptional at treating patient with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected patient’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During our visit, we observed staff in the oncology unit interacting with patients in a kind, calm and respectful manner. Patients told us staff were approachable, attentive and considerate, and took time to explain care in a clear and sensitive way. Patients felt listened to and supported emotionally as well as physically, including being offered access to psychological and wellbeing support when needed. Many patients described feeling genuinely cared for by staff who knew them well and understood their individual circumstances.

Respect for privacy and dignity was embedded in daily practice. Patients described calm, well organised environments and told us staff were mindful when providing sensitive care. For example by using curtains or private spaces and maintaining discretion during discussions. During our visit, we saw staff taking steps to preserve patients’ privacy and dignity during interactions and care delivery.

Patient feedback and survey results showed high levels of satisfaction with how staff treated them, with most people confirming they were treated with dignity and had sufficient privacy during their care.

Staff demonstrated a responsive approach to meeting patients' individual needs. Continuity of care helped staff recognise when people required additional emotional support, which was offered in a timely way. Mental health and wellbeing support was integrated into the service, including access to specialist cancer services and a Mental Health First Aider role. The service developed support arrangements for patients receiving cancer treatment. Transport assistance was available when required. Relatives and friends could access the service to support patients. Patients could communicate directly with consultants to address concerns promptly. A Breast Nurse Specialist supported patients from the treatment pathway's beginning. Patients received direct contact details for specialist advice and ongoing support. Patients told us staff responded promptly to concerns. Patients valued the practical and emotional support available throughout their care.

The service had clear chaperoning arrangements for intimate or close examinations, supported by policy and training. Staff explained examinations in advance, offered a chaperone, respected patient’s preferences and documented discussions and decisions. This supported people to feel safe and respected during examinations and treatment.

During our visit, there were no endoscopy procedures taking place. Feedback about people’s experiences of kindness, compassion and dignity within the endoscopy service was therefore gathered through telephone interviews with endoscopy service users. This feedback was consistent with what we observed and heard elsewhere, and people described being treated with respect, kindness and consideration by staff.

We also observed a positive staff culture. During our visit, staff treated each other with respect and communicated effectively, including across different roles and disciplines. Interactions between staff were polite, supportive and collaborative, contributing to a calm and positive environment for people receiving care.

We scored the service as 3. The service treated patients as individuals and made sure patient’s care, support and treatment met patient’s needs and preferences. Staff took account of patient’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Personalised care were embedded at service level through pre-assessment processes and service design. They used pre-assessment processes to identify people's additional needs in advance and planned reasonable adjustments before people attended. Leaders also developed flexible pathways to support people with autism, learning disabilities or dementia.

Staff considered patients’ individual needs and acted on across the hospital. Staff described how they assessed and responded to patients’ communication needs, sensory needs, emotional wellbeing and capacity to consent.

Staff told us they adapted communication and care for patients with additional needs, including autistic people, dementia or anxiety, and patients whose first language was not English. Staff used interpreters to support understanding and capacity assessments. They offered pre‑treatment visits to familiarise people. They reduced sensory stimulation and provided quiet spaces. Staff also adjusted appointment times to support anxious people.

These approaches were supported by staff training. Dementia awareness training compliance was 97% in the theatres department and 100% in the oncology unit. Training compliance for the Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on ‘autism and learning disabilities’ was 93% in theatres and 100% in the oncology unit.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and described how they assessed capacity and involved people in decisions wherever possible. Where people required support, relatives or those with legal authority were involved appropriately.

In the oncology unit, emotional and psychological needs were recognised. Staff described how they provided additional emotional support and referred people to psychological services when needed.

Feedback from patients who used the service showed they experienced care that recognised them as individuals. Where people had additional needs or protected characteristics, staff made reasonable adjustments to support them. Most people felt listened to, reassured and supported throughout their care.

We scored the service as 3. The service promoted patient’s independence, so patient knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service promoted patients’ independence and supported them to have choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients were given clear information about their treatment and were supported to understand what to expect, including potential risks, side effects and future options.

Patients told us staff explained treatments clearly and gave them time to ask questions and reflect on information, supported by written information. Patients felt able to make informed decisions about their care and understood why certain treatment options were recommended or were not clinically suitable for them. Where treatment choices were limited due to patients’ condition or disease stage, staff were open and honest in their discussions, which helped people understand and accept decisions.

Patients described being involved in decisions about changes to their treatment plans and said these were discussed with them in advance. Staff worked with patients to fit treatment around their lives wherever possible. This included adjusting appointment times, treatment schedules and medication supplies by mutual agreement to accommodate work, family commitments and holidays. Patients felt these arrangements were flexible and respectful of their priorities.

We scored the service as 4. The staff were exceptional in how they listened to and understood patient’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patient’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress

The service listened to and understood patients’ immediate needs, views and wishes and responded promptly to minimise discomfort, concern and distress.

During the inspection, we observed staff in oncology unit to interact positively and respectfully with patients. Staff were attentive, approachable and proactive in checking on patients’ comfort, wellbeing and any immediate concerns. We saw staff engaging with patients in a calm and reassuring manner, responding promptly to requests and ensuring people felt supported during their care.

Patients we spoke with said staff checked how they were feeling at each contact, both physically and emotionally, and responding to issues as they arose. Patients felt staff knew them well and were attentive to changes in how they were coping, which meant concerns were recognised quickly.

Staff acted quickly to manage symptoms and discomfort. Patients gave examples of side effects being identified and addressed without delay, including prompt pain relief, changes to medication formulations when swallowing became difficult, and additional medication being prescribed when symptoms worsened. Patient said staff regularly checked their comfort and responded to changes, rather than expecting them to tolerate discomfort.

The service used technology to support the timely identification and management of patients’ needs between appointments. The oncology unit piloted a digital cancer care platform for Nuffield Health, which was subsequently rolled out across Nuffield hospitals following a successful evaluation. The platform enabled patients to report symptoms, concerns and wellbeing information in real time. Oncology staff reviewed submissions promptly, enabling them to identify deterioration or emerging concerns and respond quickly with advice, support, treatment adjustments or onward referral where needed. This helped ensure patients’ immediate needs were recognised and addressed without delay.

Patient satisfaction surveys showed high scores for staff responsiveness, reassurance and support across multiple months. Free‑text feedback frequently described staff noticing when people were uncomfortable, worried or unwell and responding straight away, reinforcing what people told us during interviews.

Patients described being reassured emotionally when they felt anxious or uncertain. This included staff taking time to explain what was happening, following up consultations to check understanding and wellbeing, and providing calm, supportive responses during periods of concern, including when scan results or symptoms caused worry.

As no endoscopy procedures were taking place at the time of the inspection, we did not directly observe any patient interactions in this service area. We therefore obtained assurance through feedback from people who uses the service and other available evidence.

We scored the service as 3. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The service demonstrated a clear commitment to staff wellbeing and took steps to support and enable staff to deliver person centred care.

Senior leaders described a range of measures in place to support staff wellbeing. These included support following incidents through structured debriefs, access to an employee assistance programme and referral to external psychological support where required. Leaders recognised the additional emotional impact of working in services such as oncology and described proactive psychological and emotional support available to staff in these areas.

Staff we spoke with reported a supportive and compassionate culture. Staff told us managers were approachable and responsive and gave examples of adjustments made to support them during difficult personal circumstances, such as bereavement or pregnancy. Oncology staff described access to mental health first aiders and mental wellbeing champions and said they felt supported to discuss the emotional impact of their work. This included one-to-one line manager support and structured debriefs. Staff had access to an employee assistance programme and dedicated psychological support for oncology staff.

Mandatory training compliance was high, supporting staff competence and confidence in their roles. Staff described having access to appropriate training, development opportunities and professional support, including task specific training, apprenticeships and preceptorships. Managers and leaders maintained oversight of training, competencies and skill mix, ensuring staff were able to deliver safe, effective and person centred care.

Staff felt enabled to contribute to service development and improvement. Staff gave examples of being involved in audits, incident reviews and quality improvement work and said they were encouraged to share feedback and ideas. This contributed to a culture of learning and continuous improvement rather than blame.

The service used staff feedback effectively to improve wellbeing and working conditions. Results from staff engagement surveys were reviewed regularly, and action plans were developed and shared with teams. Leaders identified several key themes, including workload pressures, the working environment, recognition, and communication, and implemented a range of actions to address these. These actions included improving communication from senior leaders. They increased opportunities for one‑to‑one discussions. They encouraged staff to take regular breaks. They reviewed workload distribution. They also progressed environmental improvements.

Managers acknowledged areas of the staff survey that scored lower, such as workload and reward. Managers demonstrated ongoing monitoring and action where possible. Where issues were outside local control, leaders communicated openly with staff and focused on mitigations within their influence, such as recognition, development opportunities and workload management.