Oaklands Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Feedback from people who used the service and their families was consistently positive. Staff addressed personal, cultural, social, and religious needs, treating people as individuals and ensuring care met their preferences. People were respected and valued as individuals.

Leaders were approachable and cared about colleagues’ wellbeing. Staff were encouraged to develop in their careers and felt supported by line managers and the group senior leadership.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients told us they felt listened to, respected and safe in the care of staff. Patients we spoke with consistently described positive experiences throughout their care and treatment journey. They praised staff at all levels for the high standards of compassion, privacy, and dignity shown.

Patients described the care they received as ‘excellent’ and ‘amazing’ and said staff would go above and beyond to support them. They told us that staff were extremely caring, welcoming, kind and compassionate.

We saw staff treated patients with respect and dignity in the outpatient department (OPD). Reception staff were often the first to speak with patients and we saw evidence of excellent communication skills. Staff gave patients and those close to them support and advice when they needed it.

Staff advised patients if there were any delays to appointments. They apologised and gave regular updates about when they would be seen. Patients told us staff offered refreshments if they were waiting for a long period and arranged transport home if this was required

Patients told us how their privacy and dignity were maintained through discreet assessments, privacy screens within clinic rooms, appropriate sharing of information and staff advocating for their wishes throughout their care. Staff also used quiet rooms and private spaces for sensitive discussions or telephone calls.

Between February 2026 and March 2026, 2896 patients had provided feedback with 100% of patients saying they felt safe and were treated with kindness by nursing staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Individual identities and backgrounds were discussed during appointments and reflected in care plans. Patients told us they were supported to express themselves in their own words, including through adapted communication where needed.

We saw multiple instances of this through our assessment. For example, physiotherapy staff had provided tailored support for a patient to accommodate cultural and religious preference.

Patients were provided with information on treatments, local services, patient rights and how to complain. Patients told us this meant they could manage their health in a way that suited them. The information provided was accessible and we saw evidence of information leaflets available in different languages. Staff and patients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

All areas of the department were accessible by wheelchair and step-free access was provided from street level and the car park. Waiting areas were equipped with fresh drinking water, tea, coffee, and snacks for patients and visitors. Due to the short‑stay nature of outpatient services, food was not routinely provided; however, staff told us it could be offered if appointments were delayed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients could choose their appointment times, formats (e.g. face-to-face or telephone), and could request changes if needed.

Consent was revisited regularly, and staff respected patients right to pause or withdraw from treatment. Information about rights and options was clearly communicated and reinforced throughout the care process.

Patients told us they understood their rights and were supported to make choices about their care, treatment, and wellbeing. They said they were fully informed about available treatment options, including potential risks.

One patient told us they had sufficient information provided by staff in the OPD so they knew what would happen before, during and after surgery.

Patients we spoke with as part of our assessment, told us about how well staff treated them and respected them as individuals, how they were informed and given choices about the treatment that was provided. Fee-paying patients accessing the service said they were clearly informed about total costs, payment options and did not feel pressured to accept additional services or seek alternative providers. Both NHS and private fee-paying patients were easily able to rearrange appointments when this was needed.

We observed that patient’s privacy was respected, and discussions were confidential. Clinic rooms and waiting areas had posters to inform patients that a chaperone could be requested. The service had an effective chaperone policy, which appropriately considered the needs of people with various cultural and religious values and patients lacking capacity.

We observed staff providing support to a patient who was anxious. They did this in a way which maintained the wellbeing and independence of the patient. Staff told us patients who may need more time for appointments due to health complexities were highlighted during the booking process so that additional time could be added to their appointment.

The service was accessible for people with additional mobility needs such as wheelchair users, with ramps and lifts as appropriate. A hoist was available on site to support patient transfers if this was needed.

Patients were supported to manage their own health, care and wellbeing to maximise their independence when they left the hospital.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff quickly recognised when people needed urgent help or support and used appropriate tools and technology to assist. Patient’s needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority and staff quickly anticipated these to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress.

The service had clear processes for responding to safeguarding concerns or deterioration in health through a system of incident reporting mechanisms and multidisciplinary meetings where risks and immediate needs were discussed. A resuscitation team in the hospital was named every morning. This included a team leader, airway and compressions clinicians and a member of the team who collects additional supplies and equipment if needed. Details of the team were displayed in the department at the start of each day and we saw evidence of staff wearing resuscitation team badges.

Staff told us they were always considerate of patient's preferences and would ask permission before conducting investigations. Physiotherapists told us they would reschedule an appointment if that was preferable for patients. They would also ask patients if they required a chaperone or any other accommodation to make them feel more comfortable. Staff would try to resolve complaints and concerns as soon as they were raised by patients as they believed this was the most effective way to resolve issues.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt respected, supported and valued by the provider and their team. Staff were proud to work for the organisation and spoke highly of the culture. Staff told us ‘it’s a big family…’ with another saying, ‘management are really approachable, I know I can go to them at any time...’

Leaders and managers spoke passionately about their commitment to creating a safe, supportive and resilient working environment. Due to the busy and collaborative nature of the OP, staff rarely worked on their own. However, the service maintained an up to date lone working policy.

The service also engaged with staff in corporate staff surveys undertaken by the provider Ramsay Healthcare Operations UK, with a ‘One Employee, One Voice’ survey. Results for October 2025 were positive, with scores of 80% for staff recommending the company as a great place to work; 81% feeling positive about themselves at work; and 90% seeing patient safety as a priority in the organisation.

The service had a working time policy that outlined the limits on weekly working hours and entitlements to rest periods and breaks. Staff we spoke with were happy with their working conditions and felt well supported.

Staff told us that their workloads were manageable and they had regular meetings with their managers to discuss this. We saw evidence that the provider had an up to date Working Time Policy in place for all staff.

Ramsay Health Care’s values known as ‘The Ramsay Way,’ focused on strong relationships, continuous improvement and sustainable growth, guided by the principle of ‘people caring for people.’. In a recent staff survey, OPD staff listed the strengths of the service as patient safety, having the opportunity to try new approaches and living the companies’ values.