Nuffield Health Newcastle-upon-Tyne 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

Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff responded to patients in a timely way. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions and were given access to specialist services, including from allied health professionals.

This was the first rated assessment for this service since 2016. This key question has been rated good.

This meant that people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

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 patients 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.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff introduced themselves to patients and said what their role was. Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. They took their time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. Staff avoided holding private conversations over patients.

A range of feedback mechanisms were in place and results from these showed overwhelming satisfaction with the care and treatment received. We spoke to patients who confirmed all staff had treated them with compassion and respect. Patients told us the service was ‘…great’, ‘…absolutely brilliant’, ‘…wonderful hospital’ and staff were ‘…very attentive’, ‘…explained everything’ and ‘…can’t praise them enough’. All patients said staff treated them well and with kindness.

Patient comments were supported by the results from the hospital patient satisfaction survey, sent to all admitted patients. Results were displayed identifying key themes trends, ratings, comments, suggested actions, and were discussed at board, and quality and safety meetings. These showed 97% overall satisfaction, 100% felt safe in the hospital’s care, and 98% had trust in their consultant and their communication.

We observed staff in the anaesthetic room responded to patient’s anxieties about their operation and took steps to reduce stress. Patients who were particularly anxious, who were young or who had cognitive impairment were able to have someone familiar with them. In theatres patients were covered as far as possible and not unduly exposed. Staff were respectful to the anaesthetised patients. On wards and when moving around the hospital, patients were encouraged and supported to be dressed or always covered.

Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential. Bad news was broken in a private setting and voices were kept as low as possible when talking about personal information in a communal area.

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.

We reviewed care plans and saw these were tailored to individual needs and circumstances. We saw staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs.

The service requested details of any particular requirements at the time of pre-operative assessment and admission, including domestic circumstances. The service met individual needs by ensuring portering was always available, supporting patients’ with their mobility needs, all departments and wards had call bells, and dietary requirements were catered for. The service also arranged transport home for patients, if needed.

The service had patient rooms available for prayer, quiet space or private conversations. Wards provided cold water and ice, fans, or additional blankets. Mobility needs for discharge were arranged, including crutches and toilet risers. The service had access to religious leaders.

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.

We saw patients were encouraged to be as independent as soon as they were able following surgery. This included becoming mobile and able to move around the ward area, toilets and bathroom. Physiotherapists provided exercise routines when needed and supported patients to learn new ways of moving, so they could be up and out of bed as soon as possible.

Patients who wanted to take control of their medicines were encouraged to do so. We saw there were secure arrangements for them to access their own medicines by their bedside. Staff ensured consent to treatment was recoded for each patient so that informed decisions could be made.

We saw the service provided explanations of all available options, empowering patients to make choices that best suited their needs. This was achieved through prioritising dignity, personal choice, and an individual experience.

We saw the service delivered person centred and individual care by providing care meeting identified needs. Patients had access to all healthcare professionals which encouraged ongoing and productive relationships. This approach led to improved patient satisfaction, better health outcomes, and a more positive care experience.

The service completed a comprehensive assessment of each patient’s physical, emotional, and social needs. Clinicians worked with patients to develop personal care plans aligned with individual goals, preferences, and lifestyles. This ensured treatment was clinically appropriate and also meaningful to the patient. Patient needs were discussed at safety meetings to assess specific requirements, giving all staff insight into their detailed care pathway, expected and additional length of stay, and respite needs.

The service promoted prevention, rehabilitation, and long-term health improvement. These included personal exercise programmes, lifestyle advice, a joint pain programme and ongoing support tailored to the individual patient. When needed access was arranged to the company’s nearby gym.

Further initiatives included interpretation services, learning difficulties and disability needs assessment, family support, dementia friendly bedrooms and bathrooms, and dementia kit (menus, patient information, coloured crockery mirror blinds, blue toilet seat and handrail)

Staff observed patients and intervened where they saw they were uncomfortable, uncovered or distressed. Patients appeared well cared for, clean and with the items they needed such as glasses or walking aids close by. Staff encouraged patients to eat and drink sufficiently. Staff assessed patients’ pain and gave pain relief in line with individual needs and best practice and assessed how effective this was. Patients’ pain was addressed before they left the operating theatre. Patients told us they received pain relief soon after requesting it. They felt their pain was well managed.

Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. They were empathetic and considerate of the stress of a theatre environment.

We scored the service as 4. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We saw the service promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care. To ensure this staff had access to resources and facilities for safe working.

These included being able to take breaks, designated rest areas, drink and food out of hours and drinking water. The resident doctor had access to private sleeping, changing, showering and toilet facilities.

Staff were able to provide feedback for example through the employee voice survey. The latest survey results for theatre (January 2026) showed some adverse comments about team culture, working environment and equipment shortages. Similar themes were reported from the ward. We saw that the service had responded through developing actions such as ringfenced time for clinical teams, recruitment to stabilise teams, updated shift patterns, redecoration, introduction of capacity meetings, and encouraged raising issues with the freedom to speak up champions.

We saw there were ways for staff to access leaders within the service, for example through the staff forum. The update from the forum and hospital director (April 2026) outlined the hospital strategy and also assistance programmes for staff for joint pain management, mental health first aiders, ‘high-five’ nominations, discussion points and actions.

Staff had access to the company’s colleague forum, menopause hub, Muslim, Pride, and women’s networks, and the social mobility working group. These were complemented by the neurodiversity network, disability hub, and the equality, diversity and inclusion network.

Staff could also access free gym membership and reduced price membership for family members, annual health assessment and screening, and the healthy work hub.

All staff we spoke with confirmed managers led by example and promoted dignity, respect and inclusion at all times. This created a workplace culture where staff felt confident, motivated and empowered to carry out their roles effectively.