Nuffield Health Derby 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

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were at the centre of how care was planned and delivered, and that services met their individual needs.

Patients were involved in decisions about their care and told us staff listened to them and provided clear information. Staff planned care in advance to meet individual needs, including making adjustments for patients with additional needs.

Services were coordinated and flexible, with staff working across teams and with external partners to support continuity of care. Patients received information in ways they could understand and were able to give feedback, which was used to improve services.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant patients’ 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 service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs.

Patients told us staff listened to them, involved them in decisions and treated them as individuals. One patient told us they valued having both verbal explanations and written information, which helped them reflect and return with further questions.

In the theatre department, where endoscopy services were delivered, managers described tailored support. They invited patients with additional needs, such as autism, to visit beforehand. Staff introduced themselves in advance to reduce anxiety and support familiarity.

Endoscopy and oncology leaders described proactive planning through safety meetings and multidisciplinary discussions to anticipate patient’s needs before attendance. Staff reviewed upcoming lists to identify patients who might require additional support or adjustments, enabling personalised care from arrival.

We scored the service as 3. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked effectively within multidisciplinary teams (MDT) to coordinate care across pathways and organisations. MDT outcomes and specialist recommendations were incorporated into people’s care records, supporting continuity and safe decision making.

The service worked collaboratively with NHS partners to support integrated care. Staff described how they communicated directly with acute trusts, GPs and specialist teams when people required further investigation, emergency escalation or onward referral. Clear handover processes were in place, including sharing clinical information, diagnostic results and treatment plans to ensure people experienced seamless transitions between services.

For further detail on how services across this location ensures care provision, integration, and continuity, please refer to the surgery inspection report for this location.

We scored the service as 3. The service provided patients with appropriate, accurate and up to date information in formats tailored to their individual needs.

Patients told us they received clear information to help them understand their condition, treatment options and what to expect before, during and after procedures. Patients described receiving information both verbally and in writing, which allowed them time to reflect and ask further questions. We saw patient information leaflets in the oncology unit that was available in a range of formats to meet individual needs. This included patient information leaflets in easy‑read formats and in different languages, supporting people with varying communication needs to understand their care, treatment and options.

Where people had additional communication needs such patients requiring interpreters. Staff arranged professional interpreters or adapted how information was shared to support informed decision making.

For further detail on how the location provides information across the services, please refer to the surgery inspection report for this location.

We scored the service as 3. The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Several patients described being asked for feedback, taking part in surveys and being invited to contribute to patient forums or service reviews. One person gave an example where their feedback about treatment chairs was acted on. Another described being invited to act as a patient representative and contribute to wider wellbeing initiatives. This showed people had influence and a voice in how services were developed.

The service had clear systems to support feedback and complaints. Staff explained how patients could provide feedback through surveys, comment cards and direct conversations with staff. Patients told us they were encouraged to share feedback and described staff as approachable and receptive to comments or concerns. Where people raised issues informally, staff told us they aimed to resolve these promptly and escalate them appropriately if required.

Leaders described how patient experience feedback was reviewed and shared with teams to support learning and service improvement. This approach supported open communication, involvement and reassurance, and helped ensure care remained responsive to patient’s needs and preferences.

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

The service took steps to support equitable access to care. The oncology unit was fully accessible for wheelchair users. Bariatric chairs were available and could be provided across all hospital areas to meet the needs of patients requiring additional support.

For further detail on how the service addressed equity in access, please refer to the surgery inspection report for this location.

We scored the service as 3. Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service actively sought information about people who may be more likely to experience inequality in their care or outcomes and tailored care in response.

Staff demonstrated awareness of factors that could impact patients’ experiences and outcomes, including physical health, mental wellbeing, communication needs, neurodiversity and social circumstances.

Staff described how care and treatment were adapted to reduce the risk of inequality. For example making reasonable adjustments for autistic people by reducing sensory stimulation. Staff also offered quiet spaces, providing continuity of staff and allowing flexible appointment scheduling. Staff also used professional interpreters to support people with limited English proficiency and ensure they were fully involved in decisions about their care. This approach helped reduce variation in people’s experiences and supported equitable access to personalised, safe and effective care.

For further detail on how the service addresses equity in experiences and outcomes, please refer to the surgery inspection report for this location.

We scored the service as 3. Patients 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.

In oncology services, staff recognised the importance of giving people time to understand their condition, treatment intent and possible future changes. Patients told us staff explained treatment plans clearly and discussed how care might evolve over time, particularly where treatment regimens changed or where there was uncertainty about longer term outcomes. Patients said they were able to ask questions, reflect on information and revisit decisions as their circumstances changed.

Staff supported informed decision making by providing clear and consistent information across appointments. Patients described being involved in discussions about treatment options, timing of care and adjustments to treatment plans in response to changes in symptoms, scan results or personal circumstances. This helped people feel prepared for future stages of their care and confident in the decisions being made.

Where clinically appropriate, staff supported future care planning and end of life discussions. These conversations were conducted sensitively and in private. Staff followed the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) process. This records patients' wishes and clinical recommendations for emergency care. Consultants and specialist oncology nurses led these discussions. They provided clear information, emotional support and opportunities for shared decision-making. Staff worked closely with community palliative care teams when required. Specialist oncology nurses provided ongoing support following end-of-treatment discussions. This helped ensure continuity of care for patients and families.