Oaklands 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Staff assessed people's health needs and worked well together and with service partners to provide good care and treatment. Most people experienced positive outcomes following their care and treatment. Staff supported people to make informed decisions about their care. They monitored people's nutritional needs and managed pain relief. Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients.

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 in the service followed policies and guidance in completing pre-operative assessment procedures to identify patient needs and provide appropriate support.

Staff told us people received an initial consultation to identify their surgical needs and preferences and to determine if they were eligible for surgery. The service had an inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine who could be treated safely at the hospital. As part of the pre-operative assessment process, people with certain medical conditions were excluded from receiving treatment at the hospital. This ensured patients with more complex conditions were redirected to more appropriate NHS settings, where any risks were identified.

Patients we spoke with said they had attended initial pre-operative assessment appointments where their surgical needs and preferences were discussed and planned for. On the day of admission, nursing and medical staff reviewed the pre-operative assessment to consider any changes or patient needs which may have arisen.

The service used paper and electronic record systems and completed audits of documentation and recording for these. In reports shared by the provider, out of 12 reporting areas, only three scored below 95% achievement in record audits. The service had identified ongoing actions and repeat audits to monitor improvement.

We reviewed five patient care records for people who used the service and saw that these were complete with only one minor gap in documentation observed in one file. Records showed staff carried out vital observations before, during and after surgery and recorded individual risk assessments, such as for venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Staff followed a national early warning score system (NEWS2) and carried out routine monitoring based on the patient’s individual needs to ensure any changes or deterioration in patient’s conditions were identified. The service monitored compliance of NEWS2 assessment and documentation. Data provided by the service showed this compliance was 95% over the latest 3 months, with ongoing actions identified to improve performance.

The service planned and delivered people’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 standards and national guidelines such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) guidelines.

People who used the service told us they felt staff were knowledgeable and their surgical procedure was carried out effectively. They told us staff carried out regular monitoring and observations, and that they were provided with information and support for their needs.

People told us the staff monitored any pain or discomfort during their surgical treatment and offered pain relief medicines if required. We saw that staff assessed patients for any post-operative pain relief needed and used a pain assessment score to assess patients’ level of pain. We observed pain score charts were recorded for patients in the recovery area after surgery and staff managed patients’ need for pain relief where indicated.

The service completed audits for pain management and the most recent data recorded 31 October 2024 showed 94% compliance in pain management.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed as part of their initial assessment and staff completed fluid and nutrition charts where needed during their admission.

People who used the service told us they were offered a choice of food and drink and spoke positively about the quality of the food offered. Any dietary requirements for patients were considered as part of patients’ pre-admission and the service provided for the differing nutritional needs patients had.

We saw appropriate workstreams and committees to oversee evidence-based care and treatment.

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

People who used the service spoke positively about the way their care and treatment was coordinated from the initial consultation throughout the patient journey and follow up. Staff we spoke with told us they reviewed patient care needs in daily communications and regular multi – disciplinary reviews. There was good communication between different parts of the service, including with consultants and anaesthetists in the surgical team; the resident medical officer (RMO); allied health professionals (AHPs), including pharmacists and physiotherapists; nursing and healthcare support services. Staff communicated well with administrators and managers to plan and coordinate all aspects of patient care.

Staff worked with other services and agencies when needed to provide care for patients. There were effective systems to coordinate any patient transfers to different services when needed, including with NHS hospitals, GPs, community and social care services.

Service managers met with stakeholder organisations including NHS services, for continuing planning and review of their working arrangements. Consultants who worked in other NHS hospitals maintained good communication with service leaders.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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

People who used the service said they were involved in discussions about their care and treatment; they spoke positively about the quality of the care and treatment they received. People reported positive outcomes after surgery such as an improvement in movement and reduction in pain. They were pleased with the information and support available, and the continuing support provided for their recovery and rehabilitation after discharge from the hospital. People told us they did not have to wait long for appointments and had no delays. They told us they had received aftercare support from consultants and physiotherapists.

The service participated in the National Joint Registry (NJR) audit achieving NJR status of 100% in the latest audit outcome 2024-2025. The service had achieved Joint advisory Group accreditation for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. The service was implementing an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) service to reduce the length of stay and improve patient experience following knee and hip arthroplasty. Audit findings and outcomes data, such as complication rates, readmissions and site infections was collated and reviewed at clinical governance and performance meetings to drive improvement and any learning.

The service had achieved a bronze level accreditation for Aseptic Non-Touch Technique (ANTT) in the Association for Safe Aseptic Practice - Patient Protection Programme.

Minutes of the Clinical Governance Committee meeting in March 2025 indicated the hospital was reported as an outlier for incidence of knee Surgical Site Infections (SSI) and Venous Thrombo-Embolisms (VTE). Actions were identified, including reinforcing compliance with preventative measures, and continued monitoring of infection rates by the IPC lead.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.