Nuffield Health North Staffordshire Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patient’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring patient were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant patient’s outcomes were consistently good, and patient’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The service usually made sure patients’ care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff shared key information to keep patients safe when handing over their care to others. Shift changes and handovers included all necessary key information to keep patients safe. Staff with appropriate seniority had discussions about the patients’ preferences and wishes if their condition deteriorated.

Staff assessed patients’ pain and used recognised tools to do so. Staff gave pain relief in line with individual needs and best practice and assessed how effective this was. Patients told us they received pain relief soon after requesting it. They felt their pain was well managed. The hospital had produced information for patients on managing pain after a procedure which included information on different painkillers, how to manage pain at home and key things to remember. There was also the possibility to contact the hospital if patients were still in pain or if they were worried their pain medicines were not working.

We saw patients were generally calm, their faces appeared relaxed, and they were moving around comfortably, suggesting that they were not in significant pain. There was support available from an anaesthetist when a patient had complex pain needs.

The service usually planned and delivered patients’ care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high-quality care according to best practice and national guidance. All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, and clear references to current national guidelines. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance.

Catering services adapted to the needs of the patients. However, some patients felt there could be more choice on the menu. There were free hot and cold refreshments on the ground floor.

Polices and processes took account of changes to the Royal Colleges guidelines and National Institute of Care and Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

Staff used a nationally recognised screening tool to monitor patients at risk of malnutrition and used this to inform care planning and delivery.

The service reported information to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN). Intelligence reports were reviewed by service leaders. These reports contained data on PHIN’s existing performance measures, including; patient activity volumes, length of stay, never events, Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), infections and also data submission levels. Health outcomes PROMs for hip replacement showed 100% of patients improved versus the 98% national standard, knee replacements outcomes showed 100% of patents improved versus a 94% national standard and in relation to cataracts 85% of patients improved versus an 86% national standard. Overall, the available PHIN and PROMs information suggests a well performing organisation with positive patient experience and established governance arrangements.

The service usually worked well across teams and services to support patients. Staff made sure patient only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when patient moved between different services.

Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

Staff reported healthy working relations across staff groups including between medical and nursing teams. We saw and heard examples of effective team working which was based on mutual respect and trust.

Plans for discharge considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, ongoing care arrangements and expected outcomes. Discharges were planned at an early stage to ensure they were safe and appropriate for the person’s needs.

Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care. Multidisciplinary reviews and meetings were held for some specialities, for example there were daily multi-disciplinary huddles and other meetings held to discuss patients with complex needs.

Peoples’ records showed there was input from a range of clinicians and that they shared information to ensure a consistent approach to care and treatment pathways.

The service generally supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported them to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Patients undergoing elective operations had access to information about their condition, their treatment and how best to prepare for surgery. Staff spoke with them about how best to optimise their outcomes after surgery and how to modify their choices to ensure better health.

There was lots of health information on the organisation's website. Topics included men's and women’s health, family health, menopause and weight loss.

The service monitored patient’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patient themselves.

Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment through audit and benchmarking. The service used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients. The service participated in relevant national and provider led clinical audits.

The service monitored and reacted to avoidable deaths and harms. Mortality and morbidity review meetings were held. Learning from these meetings was shared with the aim of making improvements. Meetings included topics such as key prevention of future deaths and national learning.

The hospital met the Joint Advisory Group accreditation standards for endoscopy in 2025 which was valid for 5 years.

We reviewed the current hospital score card from April 2026 to June 2026 and found overall compliance was at 100%. The quality scorecard provided a visual overview of quality indicators. Domains were assessed using data from incident reporting, patient, consultant and staff feedback, consultant compliance and consultant management performance. The scorecard included safety, effectiveness and experience. Safety included topics such as mortality, infections and care related incidents. Whilst effectiveness covered unplanned transfers/returns, cancelled surgery and outcomes. Experience included clinical complaints and surgical satisfaction.

The service told patients about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent. Consent was recorded in patient records.

The 5 key principles of the Mental Capacity Act as well as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were an agenda item in a team meeting along with useful links for staff on the topic.

We noted that patient notes were audited in relation to recording of consent to examination or treatment. Ten sets of patient notes were audited in June 2026 and an overall score of 99% was achieved.

Interpreters were available to support patients to give informed consent if it was needed, including for BSL and face to face interpreting when necessary.

There was a decision making and consent to examination, investigations and treatment policy, it contained information on the 7 principles of decision making and consent, the law and medical guidance, alongside links to legislation and guidance to support staff.