- Independent hospital
Nuffield Health Shrewsbury Hospital
Assessment report published 15 October 2026
Contents
Ratings - Outpatients
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
Patients were positive about the staff and told us how they had not waited long for their appointment; they also told us how good the communication from the hospital had been. They told us how they had found booking appointments easy and that they felt staff were both polite and caring.