Nuffield Health North Staffordshire 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. 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.

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 evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Patients were given the opportunity to choose their appointment time or to rearrange it to a time suitable for them. Patients told us they had been involved in discussions about their treatment and staff had explained what would happen next.

At the beginning of outpatient clinics each day, safety huddles were coordinated by the nurse in charge. During the huddles the electronic patient record systems were reviewed to see if any patients had been flagged as requiring an interpreter or had other reasonable adjustments required to facilitate their appointment so staff could make necessary preparations. For example, we observed staff making reasonable adjustments for a person with autism. There was room for improvement with the flagging system as it wasn't always easy to determine the patients who required additional support. Staff told us people were given extra time to ask questions or to process information, and if needed staff found quiet places for people who were waiting to be seen. Interpretation was offered by telephone service.

Staff were aware that some patients aged between 16 and 18 years of age were children and adapted the service to take account of this. For example, senior staff in outpatients explained under 16 years can have a consultation, but young people needed to be over 16 to receive treatment. Outpatients had a nurse who was paediatric trained. Patients of this age group were asked if they felt comfortable in an adult environment.

There was a dementia champion within the hospital who would offer advice to the department should staff struggle supporting the person in the busy environment. We saw a patient living with dementia being treated, and once treatment had finished they were supported to a quieter area and reassured.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

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. For example, leaders had met with another health organisation to discuss specific needs in enhanced care for spinal patients undergoing surgery should it be required. The hospital had previously had these arrangements in place, but the service agreement had expired; they were in discussions to renew this agreement. To ensure service continuity it was agreed by the other organisation to continue with the old agreement until the new once had been finalised.

Staff spoke and recognised the importance about the diversity of people’s health and care needs and how they changed the way they worked to ensure the service could meet those needs. Staff worked to reduce the number of appointments people needed to attend. Patients could choose another Nuffield hospital closer to home for follow up appointments for bloods or tests rather than travelling when a face-to-face appointment with the consultant was not required. All staff within the service used the same computerised care records system which meant information about people’s care needs was available to the staff as people accessed and moved across various services.

Community links had been established for work experience, to give local children and young people learning opportunities in a healthcare environment. This was supported by a head of work experience who oversaw the placement. Buddy support was then arranged for when working in different areas.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures. Staff told us how they could request information in other languages and how this would usually happen in outpatients at the start of the patient's journey.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed, including CQC. We saw a system in place for patient safety incidents and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) arrangements were clearly delegated on a large HSE poster on the wall.

The hospital used a digital system for recording and storing patient information, we saw systems included confidentiality of patient records. The digital system meant staff could access patients records from a central point, so they were up to date.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. The hospital website refers people to ask for support if communication support is required. We were told where required patients information was shared this ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain. This included the right to have complaints heard by the local Government Ombudsman should a patient not be satisfied with the hospitals response to a complaint.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Leaders collected feedback from patients and their families on their experience of care. We reviewed a sample of feedback and generally found the feedback to be positive.

Patients we spoke to knew how to complain or raise concerns. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. Complaints or concern were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in good time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way. We reviewed 3 formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy. We were told none had been escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman. There were various stages to the complaints process including informal local resolution, formal local resolution, organisational review and independent external adjudication when the customer service team would advise on an independent adjudication service for private patients and Health Service Ombudsman.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. When asked staff said they would speak out if they saw any treatment to patients that concerned them. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately a complaint information booklet was sent out acknowledging every complaint. They received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. Complaints and compliments were discussed in team and governance meetings.

The most recent patient satisfaction survey was completed in June 2026. No actions were identified for the Outpatients department from the survey findings. Should any actions have been required, these would have been documented on the site Quality Improvement Plan and assigned to staff in outpatients for implementation and monitoring. If themes were identified by the provider from investigating complaints these would be escalated and an action plan devised to address the trend.

Department meetings actioned ‘You Said We Did’ from survey results. We saw evidence of feedback identifying the physical work environment lacking available space. Staff reported this made their work difficult. A review was undertaken of the whole hospital environment and discussions held with regional team. Solutions were in the process of being actioned and a porta cabin for administration staff identified, which would release space for the department.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. This meant patients received timely care, treatment and support in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises.

The hospital car park was free of charge and accessible for all patients, with disabled parking provided at the front of the building. The hospital provided patients with accessibility features such as a hearing loop, large print forms, disabled toilets, braille in the lift and a patient toilet.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients for example, people with mobility issues were provided with loan wheelchairs that were available from reception when patients arrived. Patient areas were on the ground floor and were fully accessible throughout. Toilets had red emergency pull cords and grab rails.

Staff received training in autism, dementia, mental health and learning disabilities. Children had access to a quieter area away from the main waiting area. Senior staff spoke about the constraint on rooms downstairs to be able to facilitate a better space. We were told a room in the hospital would be found upstairs each day, and this was to be used as a quiet room for patients who found the busy environment overwhelming. There was a designated mental health first aider available to support people experiencing a mental health issue or crisis. They acted as a point of contact for colleagues and patients requiring support.

If clinics were delayed significantly or cancelled at short notice, senior staff would instruct reception staff to contact the patient and offer another convenient time or date. If clinics had delays but they weren't as significant they would contact patients to ask if they wanted to attend a little later in the day so not to keep patients waiting.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could be contacted quickly in an emergency or arrange for any outpatients with post operative concerns to be brought back into the department quickly.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Nuffield Health had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patients’ experience. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted to support equity in patients’ experience and outcomes.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning and delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

Patients were private and NHS referred; we sought feedback from patients from both private and NHS referrals and found no difference in experience and outcomes. All patients spoke highly of their care and treatment.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreting services by telephone. The hospital used a process which meant they could send appointment letters automatically in the language spoken by the patient, including Braille for patients who were blind.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and treatment. They were given sufficient time to ask questions about their treatment options, and staff provided additional support to help them understand what these options involved. This enabled patients to make informed choices and plan their future care effectively. When people were asked to consent to treatment and procedures, they were given information about all the risks involved in having the treatment and what not having the treatment was likely to mean. Patients we spoke with felt the information they were given was clear and accurate and provided in a way they could understand

The hospital had admission criteria which they used to ensure patients were suitable for surgery. The hospital policy was to identify patients that were not suitable as early as possible in the patient pathway. Additionally, that pre-operative assessment should take place as early as possible in the patient's pathway so that all resources and obstacles could be identified early, including any discharge arrangements.

Patients were provided with access to ongoing support and advice for managing their condition, this included a pain relief leaflet. Patients could take the leaflet home, so they were informed about what pain was normal and how to plan their pain relief should their circumstances changed.

Private patients were provided with terms and conditions so they could make informed decisions about any surgery alongside a cooling off period of 14 days.