Nuffield Health Shrewsbury 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, this key question was not rated. At this assessment, the rating is 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 patient’s 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 included all necessary key information to keep patients safe such as whole hospital daily huddles. Preoperative assessments took place to determine and risks of surgery (see surgery report for further details). 

We reviewed several patient records on the hospitals electronic system and saw relevant information was recorded such as any flags, allergies, GP letters, any scanned medical records, if the patient had a chaperone, information recorded by consultants, risks such as falls, safety checklists and the outcome of any appointments.  

Patients could contact the hospital prior to their appointment if they had any specific needs, they could also speak to reception staff if they had any queries as well as their consultant or nurse. They could contact the hospital following their appointments if they had any concerns relating to their condition. 

The service usually planned and delivered patient’s 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 through meetings and management newsletters. We saw notice boards displaying up to date guidance to staff.  

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

Refreshments were available for patients such as water from a water cooler and free beverages from hot drink dispensers. 

The service usually worked well across teams and services to support patient. 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. Each morning the hospital teams came together in a morning huddle. The agenda included areas pertinent to the safe running of the hospital such as returns to theatres, if any patients had the same name, patient experience; equipment issues, hospital risks, sustainability, and the weekly flash designed to keep all staff in the loop with what was happening at the hospital.  

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. Staff were able to give us an example of how they had worked well as a team when there had been concerns relating to a patients wound following surgery. They gave examples of how they had worked closely with the physiotherapy teams and the preoperative assessment service. 

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.  

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings where required, to discuss treatment options for individual patients and improve their care.  

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. 

There was information available in leaflet format on conditions and treatments available. Consultants were available to give any health advice prior to surgical procedures or treatments. There was lots of health information on the organisation's website. These included topics such as menopause, weight loss and men's and women's health.  

Nuffield Health Shrewsbury held a contract with the local integrated care board to support NHS patients. Within meetings held they were able to discuss the local health and social care landscape to determine how they could support. They also met with a local Welsh health board on a weekly basis alongside monthly contract monitoring meetings to review activity, support patient access and help address long waiting lists. 

Staff told us how they had been to an agricultural show and had a stand. They offered free health checks such as blood pressure. As a result, over 500 people had health checks. 

Physiotherapists carried out holistic assessments of their patients, they could also provide acupuncture for pain and gave lifestyle advice. 

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. 

An audit of 10 sets of patient notes took place in June 2026. Results showed 95% compliance. Areas audited included if a risk assessment for frailty had taken place, if notes were written in appropriate language, if a falls risk assessment had been completed and if the patient had relevant observations and tests following their outpatient appointment. There was also an audit checklist from a review of 10 patient records in relation surgical outpatients' safety, the latest results for June 2026 showed 97.5% compliance.  

Staff were also audited on their knowledge around safeguarding and safety. Each month staff were asked pertinent questions on the topic to assess their knowledge such as can staff describe the different types of abuse, can they describe what they would do if they had a safeguarding concern. They were also asked questions such as who was responsible for cascading safety alerts and how they would recognise the symptoms of sepsis.  

The hospital audited outpatients as part of their Integrated Quality Assurance Review schedule, these audits were undertaken hospital wide, with actions also shared hospital wide. The service monitored and reacted to avoidable deaths and harms. National learning from these meetings was shared with the aim of making improvements.  

The service told patient 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. We saw a specific consent form was available for adult patients who lacked capacity to give or withhold consent to investigation or treatment. Nurses told us how they did not assess the patient's capacity as this was usually done at the pre assessment stage if required by the relevant consultant.  

Staff gained consent from patients for their care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. Consent for surgery was sought by the most appropriate doctor and included discussion about the benefits, potential complications, the risks, and alternative options. Patient consent was checked at various points before they went to the operating room and immediately prior to surgery. There were consent audits completed and outcomes shared with staff. We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care or treatment. People were involved in decision making at all levels. We saw that 100% of staff had completed consent to examination of treatment training.  

Chaperones were provided if requested. We observed a consultation and the GP arranged a chaperone for the examination. There were posters that advised patients that they could request a chaperone. Interpreters were used to support patients to give informed consent, including for British Sign Language and face to face interpreting when necessary.