Nuffield Health Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospital

Updated 28 August 2026

We assessed Nuffield Health Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospital on 27 and 28 May 2026.

We assessed 1 assessment service group at one location.

Nuffield Health Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospital was registered with CQC in November 2010 to deliver the regulated activities: Diagnostic and screening procedures, Family planning, Surgical procedures, and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The service had a Registered Manager.

At this assessment we assessed 1 assessment service group: Surgical procedures where we assessed 32 quality statements.

We visited the following areas as part of the assessment: patient waiting area, wards, recovery, operating theatres, offices.

At this assessment we did not identify breaches of regulations.

We rated the location as Good.

Updated 17 March 2026

• Date of assessment: 27 and 28 May 2026.
• This inspection was the first since May 2016 when the service was rated good overall.
• We rated the service as good at this inspection.

Updated 17 August 2016

We rated outpatient and diagnostic imaging as good because:

Staff were confident in reporting and investigating incidents using the hospitals reporting system. Staff received feedback from reported incidents, lessons learnt were cascaded and positive changes to practice followed.

Compliance with internal safety measures such as infection prevention and control audits and mandatory training met the hospitals targets.

Staff were flexible in their working patterns to support the needs of the service and patient requests.

Patient care followed evidence-based practice, national guidelines and best practice standards. Skilled and competent staff delivered care.

Staff interactions were kind, compassionate and genuine. Patients acknowledged the quality of the care they received.

Service planning and development was patient focussed with efficient turnaround times for investigation results allowing care to proceed immediately. Waiting times met national standards.

Departments had good governance and risk strategies with compliance against radiation legislation particularly robust.

Local and senior managers within the hospital were visible, supportive and approachable.

However:

Some reception areas were not conducive to private conversations, which could inadvertently lead to breaches in confidentiality or data protection.

Patients were sometimes confused by the signage and branding situated in the second floor outpatient department, which combined as ‘The Jesmond Clinic’ providing cosmetic and weight loss services.

Clinic waiting times were not displayed and the process of informing patients of real or potential delays was variable.

Some room risk assessments in radiology were generic and lacked specific detail.