Nuffield Health Exeter 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 people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care to meet these needs. We also looked for evidence people could access care in ways to meet their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. However, it was combined with the diagnostic imaging and was under a different methodology. 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.

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.

Care was planned effectively, and staff took patients’ individual needs and preferences into account when arranging appointments. Patients attending the outpatient’s department for post‑operative wound care were followed up with a telephone call to check on their recovery and ensure no complications had developed.

Patients were given clear information about fees in advance. Costs were discussed during telephone bookings, followed up with written information sent by post, and reiterated at outpatient appointments. This ensured patients had several opportunities to review and consider the charges before proceeding with treatment. Patients who did not attend their appointments were still liable for the associated fees.

Patients told us they were involved in discussions about their treatment and staff explained clearly what would happen next.

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.

Patients were referred into the service through clear and established pathways. Patients could self-refer, be referred by GPs or by direct referrals from the NHS. The service offered evening and weekend appointments and patients were seen by the same consultant throughout their care journey. Patients were supported by staff pre and post-surgery.

Patients were able to access the service promptly. The outpatient department consistently provided more hours each month than was planned. On average for the last 6 months the service provided 23% more hours than planned. This meant more patients were seen than planned. Consultants also added additional lists when needed to ensure patients did not have a long wait to be seen. The service had scope to increase the provision of outpatient services and managers stated they would start offering some new services in the future.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs.

There was a range of information available to patients for their medical condition, some provided by the service and others by individual consultants. The service had a website where patients could access relevant information. The service had aids to help people with their communication needs such as a hearing loop induction. This is an assistive listening system that transmits sound directly to hearing aids or cochlear implants via a magnet field, reducing background noise and improving clarity.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. We saw information could be provided in different languages and there were processes to use should a person using services require translation services.

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.

We observed several outpatient appointments where patients were able to ask questions and the consultant advised them of any treatments and their options. They were able to discuss the risks and benefits of any treatment and any cost if the patient wanted to pay privately.

Patients said they were able to raise issues with staff members. Team leaders tried to deal with concerns as they arose. In the past year the service had received 2 official complaints which were appropriately investigated and resolved.

Information on how to complain was available on the providers national website. There was the opportunity for people to contact the provider via a web form and by telephone.

Patients could escalate any unresolved complaints to a third‑party organisation, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (where care was NHS funded), or Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS). Information about these options was readily available.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it.

There were limited waiting times for patients used the service. Although the service did carry out some national health work, most of its business was from patients who held private insurance or self-funded patients. The bookings department carried out routine reviews of surgery wait lists and identified consultants whose wait lists needed particular attention and additional clinics were considered.

The service was accessible for people identified as medically suitable for the service. There were disabled toilets and the service was wheelchair accessible. There was level access to the building which was all on one floor and lifts for patients who needed to go elsewhere.

Post-treatment support was available for people using the service. This included access to physiotherapy and wound care appointments following surgery. During outpatient appointments, we observed consultants reassuring patients they could contact them directly if they had any concerns after their procedure.

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.

All staff had completed Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). This training was supported by the organisation’s EDI policy, which set out its commitment to creating a fair and equitable workplace. Managers had access to the national People Services team for support with any matters relating to equality, diversity and inclusion. The service also had a policy that clearly stated its zero‑tolerance approach to discrimination, harassment and victimisation in any form.

The policies we reviewed had a process to check if the service discriminated against protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010. Each policy had an equality and diversity declaration to show the policy had been reviewed.

The provider participated in Patient-Led Assessment of the Care Environment (PLACE), which is a review of the care environment from patients and staff. In 2025 the hospital scored higher than the national average for dementia and disability care.

People were supported to plan for important life changes so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to make decisions about their care through informed consent. Patients were given sufficient time to ask questions about their treatment and the options available to help them plan their care. Patients were encouraged to contact the service if they had any questions or concerns.