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

We looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This was the first assessment of this assessment service group. This key question has been rated good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this.

People were involved in assessing their needs, with regular reviews ensuring these reflected their communication requirements, preferences, and health needs. Care and treatment followed current evidence and recognised good practice, supporting a consistently high standard of care. Individuals were supported to maintain good health, including access to adequate food and drink, with their wellbeing monitored. Staff worked with other agencies to ensure coordinated support and smooth transitions between services.

Information was communicated in ways people could understand, enabling informed consent. Where individuals lacked capacity, staff involved those important to them and made decisions in their best interests, in line with relevant legislation.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service accepted patients via private, self‑referral and NHS referral pathways. At the point of referral, all patients were required to complete a comprehensive health screening questionnaire. This information was reviewed prior to submission for consultant assessment and included consideration of the patient’s suitability for the procedure and their initial consent.

During the pre‑operative stage, staff ensured patients’ health, wellbeing, and communication needs were fully assessed. The service had clear inclusion and exclusion criteria in place. Where patients presented with risk factors, their cases were discussed at a complex case meeting to determine whether it was appropriate to proceed. Where a patient’s needs or risks could not be safely managed by the service, care did not proceed and appropriate alternative arrangements were made.

During our assessment, we observed staff adopting a person‑centred approach. Staff regularly reviewed patients’ individual needs to ensure care was planned and delivered in line with those needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

There were processes in place for staff to assess and meet the needs of patients. The service used clinical tools which were relevant to the patients’ needs, for example, World Health Organisation (WHO) checklists, mobility and falls risk assessments.

Patients who were undergoing endoscopic procedures received clear instructions on nutrition and hydration prior to their appointment. This information included bowel preparation guidance, outlining the importance of following a specific diet and taking prescribed medication to clear the bowel and improve the quality and accuracy of the examination. The benefits and potential side effects of this medication were explained to the patient.

Patients with specific dietary needs or medical conditions, such as diabetes, were advised to contact the endoscopy service in advance of their procedure so that tailored medical advice could be provided to ensure their safety and appropriate preparation.

The endoscopy decontamination unit had been accredited by JAG. The most recent accreditation visit was undertaken in July 2025 and no concerns had been identified. The facilities were compliant with health technical memorandum (HTM 01-06) management and decontamination of flexible endoscopes.

The service had up-to-date and evidence-based policies and procedures in place, which were updated when they needed to be in line with JAG accreditation guidance. Staff at the service had access to these policies via the hospital intranet. Staff we spoke to were aware of current guidelines and we saw staff completed competencies in accordance with JAG requirements.

We saw meeting minutes of the hospital Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) with quarterly meetings to review and discuss any emerging clinical developments or concerns involving medical staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

We saw when patients received care and treatment from members of their multidisciplinary team (MDT) it was co-ordinated and effective. All relevant staff, teams and services were involved in assessing, planning and delivering patient care and treatment and staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet patient needs. We saw during our assessment that the team worked together to prepare patients for what to expect post endoscopy procedure and when they returned home.

Endoscopy staff told us that they had positive relationships across the whole hospital and worked well together. To achieve a high-quality, patient-centred service, staff held quarterly endoscopy user group meetings. This helped to maintain positive communication between endoscopy staff and consultants.

Staff communicated well with each other to respond promptly to people's needs. Each morning, the heads of each department attended a senior leadership huddle meeting. Managers told us that they would use this meeting to escalate any last-minute staffing issues.

During our assessment we attended an MDT meeting and observed good teamworking that was in line with best practice. Discharge and onward referral planning was discussed, taking patients individual needs, circumstances and expected outcomes into consideration.

Consultant surgeons and anaesthetists had clinical responsibility for patients receiving care and treatment. The hospital held a quarterly Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) with to review and discuss any issues regarding the medical workforce.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Information leaflets were available throughout the hospital, including within the endoscopy department. Patients were provided with relevant written information about their procedure at appropriate stages of their care pathway to support informed decision‑making.

Patients were asked about smoking and alcohol consumption as part of their pre-operative assessment. All identified smokers and patients who were deemed to be at risk of alcohol related complications were given advice leaflets.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service had achieved accreditation from the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG), which is awarded annually and recognises services that meet defined standards for providing high‑quality, safe, and effective endoscopy care.

In line with JAG accreditation requirements, the service collected and monitored data for patients undergoing endoscopy procedures. This included data relating to the procedure itself, waiting times, and clinical outcomes. The service had an annual audit programme in place which identified named leads and timescales for completion. Individual consultant endoscopists received feedback on their safety and performance outcomes bi-annually.

The service had achieved bronze accreditation for Aseptic Non‑Touch Technique (ANTT) in July 2024 to July 2027 demonstrating sustained improvement and adherence to best practice.

There was regular communication and oversight from the corporate provider. The senior leadership team and departmental leads routinely reported governance, performance and risks to the corporate provider and performance across key indicators around patient safety, staffing and performance was collated and benchmarked against the provider’s other hospitals nationally. The performance dashboard showed the hospital was in line with most of the corporate provider’s benchmarks for key performance indicators.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service had a clear consent policy in place, which outlined the process for obtaining valid informed consent in line with national guidance. Staff we spoke with were aware of the policy and demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities in ensuring consent was obtained appropriately.

During our assessment, we saw that consent was obtained appropriately at all stages of the endoscopy pathway. Patients were provided with clear verbal and written information about their procedure, including risks, benefits, and alternatives, to support informed decision-making. Consent was documented clearly and consistently within patient records where required.

Patients were given sufficient time to ask questions and raise concerns prior to providing consent. Consent forms were signed by patients or carers before entry into the endoscopy room. Where patients were unable to sign the consent form, appropriate alternative processes were followed and consent was obtained by a suitably trained professional in line with the Mental Capacity Act.

The service monitored consent practices through regular nursing and medical records audits. The most recent consent audit, completed in November 2025, showed a hospital-wide compliance score of 97%.

Feedback from patients indicated they felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients we spoke with confirmed that the consent process was clearly explained, and they were given opportunities to ask questions before agreeing to the procedure.