Euxton Hall 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 made sure people’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 and handovers included all necessary key information to keep patients safe.

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’ pain was addressed before they left the operating theatre.

Pain relief medicines were timed for maximum effect before painful procedures or to allow the patient to sleep at night. Patients told us they received pain relief soon after requesting it. They felt their pain was well managed.

There was support available from the anaesthetist when a patient had complex pain needs. We observed advice regarding pain management being given pre-operatively as part of preparation. There was a pain management working group that met every other month. In audits of pain management, compliance was 95% in April 2025 and 96% in October 2025.

The hospital had identified gaps in documentation of care episodes. An audit of nutrition and hydration in September 2025 was 81% compliant. The hospital had implemented its ‘importance of documentation’ project that focused on regulated activities including VTE, fluid balance, comfort rounds and discharge processes.

Housekeeping staff gained feedback from patients regarding meals and menu choices; they were told that the food was good, stating it was “superb” and “delicious”.

In the PLACE assessment in 2025, the hospital scored 100% for the ward food.

The hospital planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed uptodate 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 of Care and Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The provider monitored updates in guidance and the hospital provided examples of reviewed policies.

We reviewed 5 care records and observed the patient pathway through surgery for evidence of completion of care plans and risks assessment of patients and found they had been completed appropriately. Patients waiting to have surgery were not left nil by mouth for longer than necessary. Patients were advised to be nil by mouth 6 hours prior to their surgery but could drink water up to 2 hours before when could take any medicines as part of the ‘sip to send’ initiative.

Staff used nationally recognised screening tools to monitor patients at risk of malnutrition and patient deterioration.

The hospital reported information to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN). 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. In addition, it also included complaints data received from private insurers. Patient feedback, for PROMS was requested pre and post their surgery.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people 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 relationships 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.

Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care.

Daily ward rounds were multidisciplinary including the nurse in charge, the resident doctor, the pharmacist and physiotherapist.

Physiotherapy was available 7 days a week. MDT meetings were held monthly additional to activity meetings.

The preoperative assessment process included weekly completion of an advance notification report if there was information that needed to be shared in weekly activity meetings. These included discussions about patients who may require additional support through their surgical care pathway.

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

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

Patients undergoing 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.

Patient menus were planned in partnership with NHS dietitians to promote healthy choices. The hospital used a digital nutritional management system to support this.

The ‘eat better’ booklet was provided at pre-operative assessment. Patients were signposted to services such as smoking cessation or for blood pressure monitoring if needed. Health advice and support was personalised and holistic.

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

Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment through an audit dashboard and benchmarked against other hospitals across the provider locations. The hospital used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients.

The dashboard showed which planned audits had been completed and which were outstanding each month. This information was shared during the medical advisory committee and leadership meetings.

The hospital submitted data to the National Joint Registry (NJR) following surgical joint replacements including hips, knees, shoulders, elbows and ankles. The hospital was 100% compliant.

Data was submitted to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN) for a range of outcome measures. This included numbers and types of surgeries, whether NHS or self-funded and lengths of stay.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM’s) were also monitored. Feedback is requested from patients before and following surgery. PROM’s assess the impact of the surgery for a patient including symptoms, pain, and health-related quality of life. Complaints were also captured.

Incidents were reported including any surgical site infections for knee and hip surgeries, never events, serious incidents and healthcare associated infections.

The service told people 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. Staff knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health.

There was a provider policy for consent to treatment for competent adults and children/young people along with a policy regarding Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had provider guidance they could follow for contacting an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate if this was required.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff followed the provider policies related to consent, mental capacity, deprivation of liberty and restrictive practice, as relevant. Staff completed training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS) as part of mandatory training requirements.

For patients who were deemed to lack capacity an NHS best interest decision form was completed.

Consent for surgery was sought by the consultant surgeon and included discussion about the benefits, potential complications, the risks and alternative options. Patient consent was checked on the day of admission for surgery and immediately prior to surgery as part of routine safety checks. There were consent audits completed in June 2025 with a compliance of 99% and 97% in October 2025.

Patients said they were involved in decision making about their care and treatment. They could describe the risks and benefits they were told about prior to surgery. Relatives said they were kept informed about the care and treatment of their family member when they lacked capacity to consent to surgery.

We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care or treatment. People were involved in decision making at all levels.

Third party translation and interpretation services were used to support patients to give informed consent, including for British Sign Language (BSL) for hearing impaired patients and face to face interpreting for patients whose first language was not English.