Rivers 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.

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 told us staff took their needs and preferences into account. Patients gave positive feedback about how all staff groups treated them.

Staff discussed patients’ specific needs with them and made reasonable adjustments to meet individual requirements during their admission. Staff told us how they made reasonable adjustments based on patients’ individual needs. This included the allocation of extra time if a patient was, for example very anxious about their procedure.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Staff demonstrated an understanding of patients’ needs and provided appropriate care and treatment.

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 hospital treated patients that were NHS funded and those who were privately insured or self-paying. Referrals came from GPs or from the local NHS Trust. Leaders planned and organised services to meet the needs of the local population.

Patients spoke positively about their care and said staff co-ordinated it well. Patients told us staff listened to them and made them feel valued. They told us that staff involved them throughout the care pathway, from referral and initial assessment through to treatment and follow-up appointments.

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.

Patients told us staff provided them with the necessary information about their care and treatment. They told us staff shared information clearly and answered any questions they had.

Information about the services was readily available on the areas we visited. Staff could provide information in different languages or other accessible formats and could access language interpreters if needed.

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.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Patients told us they knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care, including how to raise any concerns or issues.

There were 6 complaints recorded between December 2025 and May 2026 relating to medical care. Different themes emerged, such as delays in medication being dispensed from the onsite pharmacy and difficulty in parking. We saw an example of changes made in response to complaints such as a change being made to the process of dispensing oral chemotherapy.

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.

Patients told us they received treatment in a prompt and timely manner and that they did not experience long waits when they arrived for their treatment. Staff told us they planned patients care and treatment in advance, so they did not experience delays in their treatment.

Additional time was allocated for patients with high levels of anxiety or mental health needs, allowing them the opportunity to ask questions and process information.

Physical premises, resources and equipment were accessible including accessible toilets and bathrooms. Patients could access interpretation services including British Sign Language and information materials were available in multiple languages upon request.

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 promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. The service provided accessible ways so that people could provide feedback.

Staff told us they aimed to respect people’s individual needs, wishes and circumstances, including those with communication needs, language barriers or other protected characteristics. Patients told us they were treated with respect and that staff took account of their preferences once they were in contact with clinical teams.

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.

Patients told us that staff discussed their longer‑term care and treatment plans with them and took their preferences into account. Staff compiled discharge information which included details of the care and treatment received and future information such as medication and follow‑up appointments. Patients also told us they were given advice and information about how to manage at home following their treatment.

The service was able to offer patients appointments that were flexible and met their needs.