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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service had set clear standards for staff to deliver consistent, responsive, and personalised care. Care was tailored to meet individual and community needs, prioritising inclusivity, and accessibility. We saw evidence of detailed care plans reflected responsiveness to diverse requirements. Translation services and communication aids were available. People were encouraged to provide feedback, ideas, and complaints, which were used for learning and improvement.

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.

Patient’s care plans fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The service made reasonable adjustments to ensure patients with additional needs understood their condition and could be involved in their care planning, ensuring care was respectful and non-discriminatory while remaining clinically appropriate. These care plans were held on an electronic patient record system.

We saw evidence that initial appointments and future care plans were shaped in partnership with each patient and their relatives and carers. Staff gave examples of how they based patient care around individual needs and preferences such as religious requirements. We saw patient feedback which stated they were grateful that staff had an insight into their culture and were prepared to adapt care to meet individualised needs. Patients told us they found the team respectful and supportive of their beliefs.

In the outpatient department (OPD), routine appointments enabled the early identification of patients living with dementia or a learning disability. Flag were then added to their care records to alert staff and ensure the patient received an individualised care plan and tailored support. Staff from all specialities, including physiotherapists, doctors, and nurses, attended daily multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to discuss patient needs and preferences.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. We saw staff understood their needs and provided appropriate care and treatment.

Staff had access to a corporate policy on supporting adults and children with learning disabilities and autism and received mandatory training in this area. Training data showed compliance averaged 87% for all staff groups across the OPD which was above the hospital target of 85%.

Accessible toilets were available in all departments and were equipped with nurse call buzzers and emergency pull cords.

Patients had access to ‘language line’ that provided immediate interpretation in more than 200 languages. Patient information leaflets were also available in Braille and in multiple languages on request.

We spoke with 5 outpatients on the day of the inspection, and they were all complimentary about the care they received. They remarked on how staff concentrated on their individual needs and preferences.

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.

Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity with input from an MDT.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. Patients were seen in a timely manner with most appointments planned in advance.

Staff across all specialities could also access the information they needed to deliver safe and coordinated care. For example, physiotherapists had access to all scans, imaging, nursing and medical notes.

The service primarily operated as a private healthcare provider. This allowed pathways and resource planning to be structured around the needs and expectations of private fee-paying patients. We reviewed service activity and patient type between 1 March 2025 and 31 March 2026. During this period, there were 72,559 OPD appointments consisting of 66,918 face to face appointments, 5359 telephone appointments and 282 video appointments. NHS patients accounted for 61,241 (84.4%) of the appointments, with private fee-paying patients accounting for 11,317 (15.6%).

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. The OPD ran 3 session clinics, 6 days a week (morning, afternoon and evening).

We saw evidence that staff kept accurate and complete records to facilitate communication and coordination which promoted continuity of care. We reviewed 6 patient records and found they were complete and contemporaneous.

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.

For example, during the first contact with the service, patients were asked about their communication requirements such as large print, easy read, interpreters, visual or hearing impairment. Staff could flag patient communication needs on the electronic patient record system and when patients were transferred to another provider, staff shared their communication needs as part of the referral process.

For patients that had hearing difficulties and used hearing aids, the OPD had a hearing loop service. Information about care, consent, confidentiality and complaints was given in written and verbal formats. Information leaflets were available in languages spoken by patients.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. The majority of record keeping was made electronically. Patients also had a folder containing paper records.

The patient records we reviewed were up to date and clearly written with a focus on patient outcomes. The electronic system was secure, and care records, including emails, were encrypted with only authorised staff able to access the system.

There was a corporate health records’ management policy and a process for the management of health records. Both documents were in date and had a review date.

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 we spoke with knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care.

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 told us they received feedback on the outcome of the investigation of complaints and the service acted on the findings to ensure learning was embedded.

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.

The OPD had received 4 complaints in the previous 12 months. Staff were aware of these complaints and we saw evidence that learning was identified and actioned as a result. Staff told us they felt confident to advocate for patients if needed and could provide examples of when this had been done.

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.

Managers planned and organised services to meet the changing needs of those who accessed the service. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of patients who used the service. One patient told us they were seen with very little waiting time.

Clinics were well signposted from the main reception desk. Staff told us plans had been approved to improve floor signage and directions within the OPD. All written information, including pre-appointment information was provided in English. Staff could access to an interpretation service.

Outpatient services were offered up to 6 days a week. Clinics were held Monday to Friday 8am to 8pm and on Saturday clinics were held from 8am to 4pm to support people who might not be able to attend during the weekday working hours.

Decisions about appointment frequency were made in patients’ best interests. The service was flexible, and staff planned treatments on patients’ wishes and clinical needs. Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered; however, staff did raise concerns with regards to space being limited and an increase in the number of patients attending the department.

The service had a small did not attend (DNA) rate at 2.6%. Staff told us they monitored and took action to minimise missed appointments within the OPD with immediate follow up. The nursing team contacted the consultant’s secretary or the patient straight away to understand reasons for the missed appointment. There was a rescheduling policy and depending on the patient’s response and the nature of their healthcare needs, there would be an option to reschedule. This was coordinated efficiently to ensure the patient received timely care.

From 1 October 2025 – 31 March 2026, 699 sessions were cancelled, with typical reasons including annual leave, sickness, consultant on-call and theatre commitments, and needing to move clinics to alternative days. This equated to a 30% cancellation rate; however, leaders told us that cancellations were always captured as early as possible, with consultants adhering to a 6 week notice cancellation policy. Systems were in place to remind consultants of clinics for the following week, capturing last minute cancellations in advance and preventing on the day changes.

Consulting room across the OPD were equipped appropriately to allow remote consultations to take place confidentially if required.

The physiotherapy department was able to run clinics on evenings and weekends using bank staff to meet patient demand and minimise wait times.

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.

Staff within the service, along with the senior leadership team, had promoted a culture where patients felt empowered to give their views and understood their rights.

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.

Staff told us that they had realistic time frames in which they could plan patients care and achieve the best possible outcomes for the needs of their patients. The majority of patients left with their next appointment date as appropriate. Patients were complimentary about the efficiency of the service.

The clinics we observed ran to schedule. Staff told us if there were delays, they would speak to patients and keep them informed, delays were also written on a board situated in the waiting area.

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

The provider reviewed their policies in line with service planning to ensure they reflected the nature of the work provided as an outpatient service. Leaders told us about that information from safeguarding referrals; complaints involving vulnerable patients and repeat attendance patterns was reviewed to identify inequities.

We saw evidence of one patient who described their disability and had completed the form to highlight their positive experience, but 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. 

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, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs and people were supported to transition to other services or community resources when appropriate.

Patients we spoke to told us they received both verbal and written information to support them in making informed decisions about their care and treatment, including what had been provided and what was planned. They told us there had been sufficient time at their appointment for them to discuss any concerns.