Nuffield Health Newcastle-upon-Tyne 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 the service met people’s needs. We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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

We scored the service as 3. The service usually made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

We saw the service delivered person‑centred by placing the patient at the heart of every decision, tailoring care to individual needs, and promoting partnership between patients and healthcare professionals. This led to improved patient satisfaction, better health outcomes, and a more positive care experience.

Each patient was assessed through an assessment of physical, emotional and social needs on admission and a pre-assessment before surgery gave the opportunity to further identify individual needs to ensure patients were optimised before surgery. Clinicians worked collaboratively with patients to develop personalised care plans that met patients goals, preferences, and lifestyles. These were discussed at patient safety meetings to assess patient specific requirements.

The service took a wellbeing approach through supporting rehabilitation and long-term health improvement. This included personalised exercise programmes, lifestyle advice, a joint pain programme and ongoing support to meet individual goals. Patients were supported throughout their treatment from initial consultation, admission, procedure, rehabilitation, and follow up. Multidisciplinary teams (consultants, nurses, physiotherapists) collaborated closely to coordinate care.

Patients were encouraged to make informed decisions through shared decision‑making supported by clear and accessible information about treatment options, risks, and expected outcomes. Patients were encouraged to ask questions and actively participate in decisions about their care, promoting autonomy and informed consent.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff were able to access support through interpretation services, communication methods and materials, learning difficulties and disability needs assessments, and dementia friendly bedrooms, bathrooms, menus and information

Staff were aware that some patients aged between 16 and 18 years of age were children and adapted the service to take this into account.

Private or self-pay patients were aware and knew all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. Where possible this was provided in writing prior to the commencement of treatment.

All patients were made aware of the arrangements the hospital had for emergency provision and intensive care. This was included in the preadmission information.

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.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant. The service had met with other organisations to discuss specific needs in their area and had links with local NHS services and trusts as well as other independent health providers.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. An alert was added to internal systems when a reasonable adjustment was identified for a patient at the time of booking, to make sure all staff were aware of their needs. The service had developed policies to support the integration and continuity of care, the privacy and dignity of adults, children and young people.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

We scored the service as 3. The service generally 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.

The service and staff made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about treatment plans.

Patients told us they knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. The service received feedback through surveys, outcome measures, social media and directly from patients.

Patients, their families and carers were provided with information to explain how they could raise a concern and how this would be investigated. Senior staff on ward areas were encouraged to respond to immediate concerns or complaints with a view to resolution. A monthly complaints meeting was held and there were policies to support the complaints process.

The service held patient experience group meetings and where possible patients were involved in identifying the causes and learning from incidents. Patients, their family, and carers felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

Complaints or concerns were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in good time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way. We reviewed recent formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy.

Patients could take any unresolved complaints to a third-party organisation or to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman, if an NHS patient. Patients were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. We saw there had been complaints which had been fully reviewed, learning identified, reflection and retraining on administrative processes and misunderstanding due to human error.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. The service had made changes based on feedback, for example staggered admission times to avoid long waits on ward prior to procedure, improved signage, clear contact details on discharge letters, and all appointments emailed in addition to post.

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

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. The service had an in-patient hospital booking process (theatre) which identified capacity planning and processes for short notice bookings, cancellations and alterations to the date of surgery. These ensured patients were able to access care when they needed it.

Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards. Hospital staff managed bed occupancy and patient flow well.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and within national targets and guidance.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed. Staff planned patients’ discharge carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs. Staff liaised with GP’s and community services when patients had complex needs.

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

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. The service had an in-patient hospital booking process (theatre) which identified capacity planning and processes for short notice bookings, cancellations and alterations to the date of surgery. These ensured patients were able to access care when they needed it.

Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards. Hospital staff managed bed occupancy and patient flow well.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and within national targets and guidance.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed. Staff planned patients’ discharge carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs. Staff liaised with GP’s and community services when patients had complex needs.

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 monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning a delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes.

We saw information which showed the service made reasonable adjustments for patients when needed. For example we saw guidelines for service and assistance dogs within the hospital, interpreters, signers, Braille buttons in lifts, signage in large print, and a hearing loop. Patient leaflets were available in different fonts, size and languages.

Discharge arrangements optimised the outcomes for all patients, including those with protected characteristics. Where necessary, carers and community services were involved to encourage and support a return to the patient’s pre-admission condition.

We saw the service responded to each individual’s needs appropriately and this was extended to the emotional wellbeing of each patient. Patients were listened to, supported, and given the time they needed to feel comfortable and in control. This ensured a high-quality experience and built trust with patients.

All patients said they were fully involved in all decisions about their care, respecting individual preferences, and adapting communication and approach to meet their needs, including cultural, emotional, and accessibility requirements. Feedback was actively encouraged and used to continuously improve the service.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.