Nuffield Health Shrewsbury Hospital

Updated 15 October 2026

Nuffield Health Hospital Shrewsbury is operated by Nuffield Health. Nuffield Health is a charity and so identified as not for profit with profits reinvested to further enhance patient care. The hospital has a 30 bedded ward and provides surgery, and outpatients and diagnostic imaging. Facilities include 3 operating theatres (which included 1 theatre used for endoscopy procedures), X-ray, outpatient and diagnostic facilities. The services were available to adult NHS patients and also insured and self-funding people. The hospital registered manager has been in post 6 months.

The location is registered for:

Diagnostic and screening procedures

Family planning

Surgical procedures

Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

Surgery and Out patients at Nuffield Health Shrewsbury Hospital were last inspected in July 2018 and were rated good overall, with a good rating in all key questions.

We inspected the service as it had not been inspected since 2018 and as such had an aged rating. We inspected this service using our comprehensive assessment methodology.

Our onsite assessment was undertaken on 25 and 26 August 2026.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate. Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

This was an assessment of Surgery and Outpatients only. Our findings on both of these services can be found in the services section of the report.

Updated 10 March 2026

The assessment took place on 25 and 26 August 2026. The reason for the assessment was due to an aged rating.The hospital had an outpatient service at the hospital; it had consulting rooms and waiting areas and included a physiotherapy service. This was inspected under our new methodology as previously outpatient services were rated alongside diagnostics.  

Safe:  

The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Leaders investigated incidents thoroughly. Lessons learned and improvements were identified and shared with staff. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and safe systems of working.  

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications, and experience to ensure high quality care and treatment.  

Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated. 

Effective:  

Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment was based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. 

Patients had access to drinks in waiting areas. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.  

Caring:  

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.  

Responsive:  

Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided information which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback, knew who to speak with if they had concerns and were confident the service took their concerns seriously.  

The service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access.  

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training, and feedback. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.  

The service supported staff wellbeing.  

Well-led:  

Leaders knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust.  

Leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.  

Leaders had sound oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems.  

Staff with protected characteristics felt supported. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.  

Updated 10 March 2026

There were 2 wards on 2 floors and a separate surgical assessment unit which provided minor surgery procedures and ophthalmology surgery: between 1 September 2025 and 31 August 2026 there were 3895 patient surgical operations of which 3109 were day cases and 786 were inpatients at Nuffield Health Shrewsbury Hospital. 

The hospital provided a wide range of surgical specialties, including:

Breast surgery

Ear nose and throat 

Gastroenterology

General surgery

Gynaecology

Neurology 

Ophthalmology

Oral and maxillo facial surgery

Pain management

Plastic surgery

Spinal surgery 

Trauma and Orthopaedic surgery

Urology

Vascular surgery 

The hospital had no previous breaches in regulation, and no new breaches were identified.

Safe: 

The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and lessons learned and improvements were identified and shared with staff. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and safe systems of working. 

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience in departments, wards and in theatres to ensure high quality care and treatment. Managers made sure staff received training and had regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. 

Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated.

Effective: 

Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment was based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patients’ pain was quickly identified and well managed. 

Staff assessed patients’ nutritional and hydration needs, made sure patients had sufficient to eat and drink or alternatives as needed. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.  

Caring: 

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. 

Responsive: 

Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided information which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback, knew who to speak with if they had concerns and were confident the service took their concerns seriously. 

The service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access. 

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. 

The service supported staff wellbeing. 

Well-led: 

Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust. 

Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. 

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. 

Leaders had sound oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems. 

Staff with protected characteristics felt supported. 

There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.  

Updated 11 January 2017

Outpatients and diagnostic imaging services at this hospital had systems and processes in place to promote practices that protected patients from the risk of harm.

There were sufficient numbers of trained staff to meet the needs of patients. We saw that equipment in all areas was well maintained and kept clean to minimise the risk of infection. Records were available and well maintained.

There was an open culture where staff were encouraged to report incidents and lessons learned were shared within teams.

The radiology department had recently introduced the use of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Five Steps to Safer Surgery checklist to ensure patient safety.

Treatment and care was provided in line with national guidance. We saw there was good multi-disciplinary working and patient’s needs were responded to.

Staff were polite, courteous, friendly and responsive to patients’ individual needs.

Staff felt supported and proud to work within the hospital. They were very positive about the Matron who had been in post for 12 months and made positive changes to the hospital.

However, we also saw that flooring and hand washing sinks did not meet current guidelines but the hospital was in the process of replacing them. Not all staff we spoke with demonstrated full understanding of the Mental Capacity Act.