Oaklands 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 the service met people’s needs.

This was the first assessment of this assessment service group. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People were involved in decisions about their care and were given information in ways they could understand. They knew how to provide feedback and were confident it would be taken seriously and acted upon. The service was accessible and actively worked to eliminate discrimination, ensuring people received fair and equal care. Staff also aimed to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were supported to plan their care and understood their options, including choosing to withdraw or decline care.

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.

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

Patients we spoke with told us that they experienced person-centred care in the endoscopy unit, with staff consistently responding promptly to any changes in individual needs. Patients described feeling listened to and supported throughout their pathway and gave examples of staff adapting care such as adjusting communication approaches, providing reassurance, or modifying the level of support based on anxiety or physical need.

Care plans were clearly aligned to the procedure being undertaken and reflected the specific clinical and personal requirements of each patient. Patients were involved in the care planning, and such plans were updated in response to changing needs.

Staff told us that they were confident to work with patients with learning disabilities, dementia or who were neurodiverse. Staff in the service were fully compliant with dementia awareness e-learning training.

However, not all staff in imaging had fully completed both tiers of training in learning disability and autism in line with the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice. Leaders told us that senior staff had undertaken the face-to-face component of the training first with a plan to roll this out to all staff in future.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 service maintained effective working relationships with other local healthcare providers, which supported clear communication and helped to ensure continuity and joined-up care for patients. Staff described established referral pathways and maintained regular contact with external services, enabling timely sharing of clinical information and appropriate escalation where required. Where patients were not suitable for endoscopy, systems were in place to ensure they were not unnecessarily booked, and referrals were redirected promptly to the most appropriate provider to continue their care, minimising delays and reducing the risk of inappropriate treatment.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of the diverse needs of people using the service, including cultural, communication, and individual support requirements. They were able to describe how they adapted their approach to meet these needs, such as making reasonable adjustments, using accessible information, and involving carers or support networks where appropriate.

Managers monitored waiting times and made sure most patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets. Patient appointments were booked by the administrative team, who assessed patients’ individual needs and scheduled an appointment with adequate time.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) is a legal requirement introduced in 2016 to ensure that adults and children who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information in a way that they can access and understand, and any communication support that they need is identified, recorded and provided. The service had processes in place to ensure that patients received information that met their communication needs and was compliant with the AIS standards.

Information leaflets were widely available across the service for patients to read and take away, including details of each procedure and information on how to raise a complaint. The content of the leaflets was clear to the reader and advised patients how to get in touch with the service should they have further queries or concerns. Leaflets could also be provided in alternative languages or easy read formats if required. However, we noted that many of the leaflets had exceeded their review date. Leaders told us that they were aware of this issue, which was due to using up printed stock prior to having changed providers.

Patients were provided with appropriate, and accurate information at all stages of their care within endoscopy unit. Staff had access to a range of procedure-specific information leaflets, which clearly outlined the procedures, associated risks, and any relevant conditions, and these were routinely shared with patients to support their understanding and decision-making.

Staff had access to translation and interpretation services, which were used where required to support patients whose first language was not English or who had additional communication needs using face to face provision.

The service ensured that all procedures were supported by standardised aftercare information, enabling patients to safely manage their recovery and understand when to seek further advice. The service shared a report with patients’ GPs following their procedures, with a copy shared with the patients themselves for their own reference.

The service demonstrated transparency in communication with self-funded patients so that fees and associated costs were clearly explained in advance.

The provider had a ‘Facility Rules’ document which committed all staff to follow information governance requirements in line with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The service made notifications to external bodies as needed, and internal documentation was readily available to guide staff on what occurrences required notification. There had been no Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) reportable data breaches relating to the service in the 12 months prior to our assessment.

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

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences including how to raise complaints or concerns. Patients told us they felt comfortable raising any issues with staff caring for them at the time. We saw complaints procedure leaflets were given to patients on discharge together with their discharge report.

The service had a complaints policy that set out the required procedures, including offering patients a face-to-face meeting to discuss their concerns if they wished. The policy stated that complaints should be acknowledged within 3 days and a full response provided within 20 working days, or within 20 days of a face-to-face meeting. The complaints policy included the process to follow for unresolved complaints and signposted to external organisations such as the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) for private fee-paying patients and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) for NHS patients.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Staff told us that information about complaints was discussed during daily safety huddles and at routine team meetings to aid future learning.

The hospital had received 2 complaints relating to endoscopy procedures during the past 12 months and these were addressed appropriately by managers within the timescales set out in the providers policy.

Managers described how they responded quickly to informal concerns, often resolving issues before they escalated, while still providing patients with clear information on how to make a formal complaint if they chose.

Patients and their families could give feedback on the service and their treatment, and staff supported them to do this. We observed staff were proactive in engaging with patients and families about their experiences and frequently asked how they were. This happened during and after appointments. Patients could scan a QR code to access the survey and staff said this meant they could gain more timely feedback on the care and overall experience. Leaders told us that feedback was regularly reviewed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was flexible, convenient and accessible for people with disabilities. People could choose appointment times that suited their needs.

We reviewed endoscopy and JAG feedback survey responses for the service in the month before the assessment, and they were both positive. These included questions on sufficient time given to patient, waiting times and confidential information sharing.

We spoke with both NHS and fee-paying patients who both felt that the service was quick to contact them and agree an appointment date that was convenient for them, and that expected timelines were clearly communicated. Some patients advised us that they had been contacted for an appointment within hours of their referral to the service having been made.

Patients we spoke with said they did not have to wait long for their appointment and staff told us that they communicated and informed patients immediately if there would be a delay for their appointments. The majority of procedures were arranged within national waiting times targets of 6 weeks, although in some cases the target was exceeding, oftentimes due to patient cancellations and non-attendances. From 1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026, 90 endoscopy sessions were scheduled and all proceeded as planned with no clinic cancellations.

The service had procedures in place to manage and rearrange cancelled appointments, and how to respond to patients who did not attend (DNA). Individual circumstances would be considered although the service would discharge the patient back to the referrer in the case of multiple DNA instances.

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

The service maintained robust systems for the continuous monitoring and review of patient experience and clinical outcome data. Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views, and demonstrated that they understood the diverse community they served. As such, staff had completed and were compliant with mandatory e-learning in equality, diversity and inclusion. Provider policies and procedures also included effective equality impact assessments.

All staff were committed to ensuring equitable access, outcomes, and experiences for all patients, including those with learning disabilities, autism, dementia, and mental health needs.

While friends and family test surveys did not query this, other experience surveys in routine use queried the patient’s gender and ethnic/cultural group to help identify any evidence of discrimination. We saw evidence of one patient who described their disability and had completed the form to highlight their positive experience, however other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 such as disability status, sexual orientation or gender reassignment were not routinely queried and so the service could not be assured it was not discriminating in these areas.

The service had processes and policies in place which ensured patients were treated in line with legislative requirements.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported endoscopy patients to make decisions about their care and treatment. Personalised care plans took account of their individual needs, wishes and feelings. The type of service provided meant that staff did not routinely discuss people’s long-term care needs, because patients only underwent minor endoscopy day case procedures.

Records we reviewed showed that, prior to endoscopy, patients received clear information about the procedure, including risks, benefits, and expected outcomes under local anaesthetics or sedation. Post-procedure records demonstrated that patients were provided with appropriate discharge information, including aftercare advice and guidance on recovery following endoscopy.