Euxton Hall 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 patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant patient’s 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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The hospital had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff were able to access support through weekly activity meetings where patients care needs were discussed so that appropriate support was in place. We were given examples of patients discussed at these meetings such as when identified with cognitive impairment (dementia), learning disabilities, safeguarding concerns or requirement for an interpreter. Notifications were added to the patient’s electronic record for sharing of information and personalising care.

There were dementia clocks and toilets. The hospital promoted use of ‘this is me’ and forget me knot stickers. Blue pillows could be sourced and mirrors could be covered if needed. Falls alarms were available if required or one to one enhanced care could be arranged. Ward tours could be organised as part of preparation and familiar items from home could be brought in such as preferred music. Relatives were able to stay, have flexible visiting or escort patients if needed.

We were given examples of times the hospital had implemented tailored adjustments across the entire care pathway with co-produced care plans in understandable formats for patients identified pre-operatively.

Staff completed learning disability and autism tier 1 & 2 training. Oliver McGowan training had a compliance of 91% and dementia Tier 2 a compliance of 99%. Equality and diversity compliance was 99.%.

There were plans to further improve documentation provided to patients to include ‘sound bites’ that would be able to demonstrate what sounds to expect particularly in the theatre environment.

For patients who were self-funding their surgery, they were were contacted about all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. They were provided with the terms and conditions of the services to be provided.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The hospital planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with other hospitals in the area as well as in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

There had been 3 readmissions in the 12 months prior to inspection.

Leaders had plans to increase activity of day case activity and utilise this with faster turnaround lists such as for pain management.

The service 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, investigations and advice for maximising their health at the pre-operative assessment and prior to their discharge home following the surgery or procedure. Information was also available on the providers website.

We asked if information was available in alternative languages and were shown how required leaflets could be produced.

There was a provider framework for providing care to patients who require additional support to access information & services.

We were told that the providers website included information regarding the accessibility of the hospital. A screen reader converted digital text into speech or braille, allowing patients who are visually impaired to access the content.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The hospital 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.

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. Patients and those close to them could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

There was a provider complaints policy that included the process and timeframes for complaints handling. There was a leaflet for patients to explain how to complaint to the hospital. Both documents included signposting to third parties if a patient was not satisfied with the providers response both for NHS and self-funded patients.

Between March 2025 and February 2026 there had been 17 complaints for the hospital, 1 of which was referred to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS).

Complaints or concern were investigated, and patients received a response in good time. They were dealt with in an open and transparent way to encourage learning. We reviewed 5 formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. An audit in March 2026 showed a compliance rate of 93%.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could not always access the hospital when they needed to due to restrictions within the integrated care system when surgical activity needed to be paused as well as the 3 month period when refurbishments took place.

The hospital monitored do not attend rates and submitted data to NHS England regarding referral to treatment (RTT) times. The hospital submitted monthly RTT data to NHS England. There was a target of 92% of patients to be seen in less than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. However, there was no information provided regarding compliance with the target.

Leaders monitored patient did not attend numbers. These were low at the hospital and were captured as cancellations when they were down to patient choice.

Theatre utilisation from January 2026 to March 2026 was 70%.

This utilisation had dropped by 7% from January 2025 to March 2026 as a result in restrictions on NHS contracts with the integrated care system (ICS).

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and within national targets and guidance.

Between March 2025 and February 2026 there was an average of 44 cancellations each month, although there were seasonal variations with 44 in February 2026 but 140 in July 2025. Of these there was an average of 44 for clinical reasons each month, such as patient unfit for surgery, and 36 for non-clinical reasons such as patient choice to defer.

To help reduce the number of cancellations improvement actions have been implemented that include enhancement of the pre-operative pathway to ensure that patients, particularly those with complex needs are theatre ready to help reduce risk of cancellation on the day of surgery. This included activity meetings and a multi-disciplinary (MDT) approach.

There was also focus on ensuring that staff availability, appropriate equipment being in place and theatre overruns were monitored.

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 GP’s and community services when patients had complex needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

There was a provider equality and human rights policy and a dementia framework.

The hospital monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning and delivery. Staff were aware of patients who had been identified at pre-operative assessment and weekly activity meetings that may require additional support such as cognitive impairment, learning disability or hearing impairment. 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 translator and interpreter services. Information was in a range of formats including easy read, animations, large fonts and multiple languages.

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.

In the PLACE assessment in 2025 the hospital, the section regarding a dementia friendly environment scored 82% compliance and the disability friendly section scored 84%.

People were 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 at pre-operative assessment. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice.

Discharge summaries were given to the patient to take home. Any follow up appointments such as wound care or consultant review were organised at time of discharge. Any discharge medicines were given along with any equipment and leaflets.