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

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patient could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant patients’ 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.

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.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs such as learning disabilities and dementia.

There was a dementia room located next to the nurses’ station on the ward. The room had a picture of a toilet on the bathroom door, loose toilet rolls instead of toilet roll dispenser, a clock with days of the week and different coloured handrails.

There were some worry mittens on the ward for patients which were single patient use. The hospital also welcomed the use of the 'This is me’ document and had a dementia champion.

Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences. The catering services adapted to the needs of the patients. However, patients felt there could be more choice on the menu.

We noted patient safety meeting forms contained information such as background, history, allergies, medicines and any recommendations. Staff were able to add an alert to the computer system if anything needed to be highlighted.

We heard examples of staff supporting patients who were anxious. Staff told us how the patient had been invited to come onto the ward and had discussions about their upcoming care and treatment. They also gave an example of how they had supported a person with autism and how they had worked to make it a positive experience.

Staff had access to a pictorial book for patients who could not use words to communicate. The book contained pictures such as body parts, nil by mouth, faces and symptoms.

As per Royal College guidelines private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications.

Leaders made sure staff, patients, families, and carers could get help from interpreters and signers when needed.

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, the hospital treated both private and NHS patients. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. If any patient had additional needs such as a learning disability or dementia, they would be discussed at the weekly patient safety meeting which took place with pre assessment and a discussion would take place if they were suitable. This also included patients with Parkinson's disease who needed time critical medicines.

Ahead of the patient safety meeting, the pre-operative assessment team contacted the patient's Parkinson's nurse specialist to confirm that the clinical team had access to the latest information relating to the patient's Parkinson's disease management and medication requirements.Details would also be recorded in the communication book.

The service usually 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 this would usually happen at the pre operation stage of the patient's journey.

There was a joint surgery information pack that had been co-produced with physiotherapy and pharmacy. It was also used as part of the joint school (a programme designed to help patients prepare for hip or joint replacement surgery) and delivered by the multidisciplinary team. The pack contained information such as what to bring to hospital, pain relief and what to expect, getting ready for discharge and driving to work and return to usual activities. All arthroplasty patients were invited to attend a comprehensive joint school as part of their preoperative preparation.

We saw patient information on compression stockings. It included useful information such as how to put them on, how long they need to be worn and how to look after themself and their stockings. There was also information about what a pressure ulcer was and preventative measures that could be taken.

We heard how a card with a quick response (QR) code had been developed following patient feedback that they did not have enough information on their condition. Patients with similar conditions were now able to scan the QR code to access information relevant to them.

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 people 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.

The latest patient satisfaction survey from April 2026 showed that 93% of patients said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

Leaders told us patients 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. People, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

There were various stages to the complaints process including informal local resolution, formal local resolution, organisational review and independent external adjudication where the customer service team would advise on the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) for private patients, or the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for NHS patients.

Complaints and compliments were discussed in various team and governance meetings. Over April 2026 and May 2026 there had been 2 complaints and 56 compliments at the hospital.

We reviewed a sample of 3 previous complaints, acknowledgement letters and responses and we found the hospital offered an apology was things went wrong and in one instance a second opinion. Complaint leaflets ‘your opinion matters’ with additional information such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman or ISCAS were sent out with responses.

Leaders kept a tracker of all complaints received. Most complaints over the last 12 months related to service delivery, communication and administrative processes. Complaint themes if any were reviewed via the hospital governance framework. We saw complaints were discussed in team meetings.

Results from the most recent patient satisfaction survey June 2026 showed 96 % of inpatients and 89% of day case patients would recommend the hospital to friends and family if they needed similar care and treatment. Patient satisfaction surveys results were reviewed through the governance framework and reported to board meetings, quality committees and external stakeholders including integrated care boards and local trusts. There were no recurring themes, trends or areas of concern identified through this feedback.

Learning from complaints and concerns is seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice.

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

Managers monitored waiting times where this was necessary, and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets.

Demographics showed 67% of patients were NHS funded, 18% were funded by private health insurance and 14% were privately funded.

The total number of surgeries performed over the last 12 months at the hospital was 10125. Data collected from the hospital showed that across 1562 completed surgical episodes patients waited an average of 6.8 weeks from decision to surgery to having their operation. 97.8% of patients were treated within 18 weeks of their decision to treat across a 6month period.

The 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.

There were 180 operations cancelled on the day of surgery between 1 June 2025 and 30 June 2026. The main reasons for cancelations were cited as staff availability (20), and facilities or equipment (40). Leaders told us how the cancellations due to equipment amounted to less that 1% of their overall activity over a 13-month period and that cancellations due to staffing accounted for less than 0.5% of activity. All issues were dealt with promptly. Decisions to cancel operations were made following multidisciplinary discussions including consultation with the operating consultant.

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

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.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpret services.

All areas of the hospital were accessible for people who used wheelchairs or mobility aids. All rooms were ensuite and toilets had red emergency pull cords and toilet rails. There were disabled parking bays near to the front entrance.

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.

Staff received training in autism, dementia, mental health and learning disabilities. Leaders nominated a room in the hospital each day to be used as a quiet room and this was discussed in the morning huddle.

Patients were usually 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 plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer if they wished.

Staff discussed health lifestyles for going home and recovery from the patient's operation. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice. They were provided with information such as what to expect after surgery and when they should call an ambulance.

Patients were provided with access to ongoing support and advice for managing their condition. For example, day case knee arthroplasty medication compliance charts had been devised for patients to take home with them.