Euxton Hall Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement that was based on meeting the needs of patient who used services and wider communities. We checked that leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, integrated, person-centred and sustainable, and to reduce inequalities.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The hospital had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action. This vision reflected the overarching provider aims and objectives. Staff we spoke with had awareness of how their work contributed to achieving targets.

The provider’s approach was ‘the Ramsay Way’ that focused on ‘strong relationships’, ‘to constantly improve’ and ‘to grow sustainably’.

Their vision and purpose was to “Create a positive work culture where patient care is at the heart of what we do- underpinned by our purpose.”

Theatres had a strategic focus for 2025 to 2026 on ‘people and culture, operational excellence, scale & growth and clinical excellence.’

Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The hospital promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for career development. The hospital had an open culture where patients, and those close to them, as well as staff were encouraged to raise concerns.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff reported that the leadership culture was inclusive and how they felt valued and respected. Relationships between staff of all grades were positive, with strong teamwork and collaboration.

Staff felt motivated about the future and planned changes for the hospital.

Team and Individual staff achievement, and success was recognised and celebrated. Staff were thanked for their work.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders understood the impact their behaviours and leadership had on patient outcomes and experience.

The hospital was one location for an independent healthcare provider that delivered care nationally.

The leadership at the hospital included a hospital director that was also the CQC registered manager for the hospital and one other local hospital location. The director was supported by local senior managers such as a head of clinical services and heads of individual departments.

Leaders had a range of experience, skills and abilities to run the service, and they understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. Leaders were visible, committed, passionate and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Staff felt the leaders supported them to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.

Information was cascaded from leaders at staff forums and in recorded messages. Staff were able to participate in question-and-answer sessions.

Leaders had taken incidents seriously and knew how to deal with concerns when raised which promoted a positive culture in the service. Leaders attended the ward and departments to assess for themselves how the service was running.

The staff engagement survey included this hospital and the neighbouring hospital. Results had shown improvements in 2025 from the previous year that suggested increased staff satisfaction. These included an engagement score of 71% that had increased by 3%, well-being score of 74% that had increased by 8% and an inclusion score of 63% that had increased by 6%.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and offer ideas; the culture allowed staff to be confident and their voices were heard. Staff we spoke with told us they felt empowered to speak up if they observed a concern about inappropriate behaviours.

There was a provider speak up for safety policy and process and a whistleblowing process. Speak up focused on human factors and stressed the importance for all health workers, particularly checkers, and the patient to effectively speak out.

Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns and believed they would be supported without fear of negative consequences. When concerns were raised, leaders investigated sensitively and confidentially. The local senior leadership and provider level were made aware when whistleblowers had raised serious concerns. Risk registers and management reports contained analysis of concerns over time and associated action plans.

Patients, their families and carers were provided with information to explain how they could raise a concern and how this would be investigated. Senior staff on ward areas responded to immediate concerns or complaints to resolve these.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Data relating to workforce race equality standard (WRES) was monitored, however; this was at provider level. The Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) is a mandatory NHS framework to measure and improve workplace race equality.

Leaders took steps to remove bias from practices to ensure equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce within their place of work, and throughout their employment. Staff told us they had opportunities to apply for project work, new roles and to undertake external studies through an open application process.

The hospital acted to prevent and address bullying and harassment at all levels and for all staff, with a clear focus on those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those from excluded and marginalised groups. Staff felt everyone was treated fairly and that they would be able to report behaviour or attitudes which were negative.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The hospital operated effective governance processes through a range of committees such as medicines management, audit and effectiveness and infection prevention and control committees. Data was collected, monitored on dashboards, reviewed in meetings and was fed upwards to the provider. Information such as training compliance, audits, incidents, and complaints that were reviewed was benchmarked across the provider organisation and where improvements were needed at the hospital level, action plans were developed to make this happen.

There was a provider recruitment process & provider disclosure and barring service (DBS Process).

The medical advisory committee was chaired and supported by hospital leadership and met quarterly with representation from all specialties. It oversaw practising privileges, reviewed clinical outcomes, and provided a forum to raise concerns. Meetings were minuted and included updates on activity, consultant onboarding, and key issues.

Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities. Staff had job descriptions, and these set out expectations and responsibilities. Where senior staff had designated tasks related to audit and monitoring quality of services, they understood what was required of them.

Staff could find the data they needed, in easily accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were integrated and secure. Data or notifications were consistently submitted to external organisations as required.

Leaders made sure that accurate information was discussed and shared with key staff. For example, information was shared at team meetings, via electronic systems and newsletters.

Risks were clearly identified and a formal log of these was used to keep oversight and manage mitigations and/or bring to resolution. Staff contributed to decision-making to help improve sustainability and improve quality of care.

The estate was cited on the top risks for the hospital. These related to the environment, including the aged roof and water systems, information governance and ongoing equipment maintenance. The risk register was reviewed monthly with plans to reduce risk levels and mitigations in place to help reduce the risks.

Audit processes and the outcomes were used to ensure quality of services was maximised. Monthly meetings were held. Where improvements were required, leaders ensured action plans and the monitoring of these led to positive changes.

The hospital had plans to cope with unexpected events and had a business continuity plan, which included major incident plans. The hospital shared an example of where they had used the business continuity plan for a power cut 6 months prior to our assessment where the back-up generator had been activated.

The hospital had not reported any data breaches in the 12 months prior to assessment and systems were secure. Patient identifiable information was handled correctly. Information governance was part of mandatory training requirements. Compliance for this training was 95%.

Service level agreements and provider policies we were shared were up to date and readily available to staff. There was leadership oversight of the accuracy and validity of each policy.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff and leaders at the hospital collaborated with relevant external stakeholders and agencies to improve care and treatment for patients using the hospital such as the integrated care board and local GP’s.

We requested feedback from stakeholders about the service. Information we received was positive and they reported feeling assured about communication and the working relationship.

Some senior leaders were part of regional networks to understand the needs of the community and the provider ambitions.

Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations, using social media, to plan and manage services.

Staff at the hospital contributed to annual giving back days where they supported nominated groups in the local community to support. This had included a day of gardening activities for a local disability group.

They supported health fairs in local GP’s and had visited local schools providing teaching sessions.

Each year, the hospital named a charity to support, and staff completed events such as marathons in aid of these charities and had donated used crutches and furniture to oversees charities.

They sponsored a local grass roots football team and had recently collaborated with the towns football team. A physiotherapist was supporting with cancer advice as well as chefs teaching local children to cook.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff were committed to continually learning and improving services.

There were processes for learning when things went wrong or of good practice, either locally or nationally. We were provided with examples of learning from incidents.

Staff were supported to have the time to develop their skills around improvement and innovation and to pursue areas of interest in the service. Leaders encouraged innovation and participation in research.

Staff and leaders were committed to excellence that centred on the patient experience. Where they saw a need, they worked together to find a solution. We were shared examples of patient focused care experiences.

Administration staff had contributed to improvement work that was ongoing with an internal tracking system that monitored trends and themes within the booking system that may impact on utilisation figures. These could be escalated at daily huddles or other meetings planned.