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 people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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 patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
 

Patients were supported to make informed care decisions. For example, aftercare options were discussed including pain relief that supported individuals’ personal preferences. 
 

All staff we spoke with were focused on delivering tailored care that met patients’ individual needs. Staff received training in Ramsay’s customer service principles outlining that everyone is responsible for good patient care, every moment matters and ‘it starts with me’ initiative.

Leaders emphasised the importance of ‘active listening’ and how positive verbal communication with patients and their families could influence good care experiences. 
We observed staff supporting patients who were anxious and nervous about their surgery. They provided a welcoming environment and ensured care plans were tailored to individual needs.

Staff were given specific training on how to support patients with neurodiversity. Awareness training such as the Oliver McGowen program was part of training which highlighted how awareness and tailored support could greatly improve care experiences. At time of assessment 94% of all permanent and bank staff had completed their Oliver McGowen training.

Staff were supported by policies and procedures that outlined care expectations, resources and best practice guidance when caring for patients requiring additional support.

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.
 

Patients told us they experienced a clear care pathway, from referral, consultation, pre-admission, surgery and post operative after care. They told us their surgical care met their expectations and that they received the support needed to recover well.

Surgical leaders designed services with the needs of the local population and communities in mind. This included pre-admission ‘check in’ telephone calls 2 to 3 weeks before surgery. Staff also ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

The service worked effectively with other hospitals in the area to coordinate and support care, particularly where patients required transfer to an NHS hospital for further specialist treatment. Consultants and clinical staff ensured that appropriate medical transport were made and that clinical handovers were comprehensive, timely and accurately documented. Data showed that 3 patients had been transferred to the local NHS hospital in the 6 months prior to our assessment.

Staff were supported by a framework of policies and procedures designed to promote safe continuity of care. These included guidance on the safe transfer of patients, handovers to theatre teams and the management and transfer of critically unwell patients.

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 they received clear verbal and written information about their surgery and felt well informed throughout their care. They also accessed the service’s public website, which provided information on how to access the service, the hospitals facilities and the support available to them. This included a virtual tour of the hospital and comprehensive accessibility information to help patients prepare for their visit. 
 

Digital screens were installed in patient waiting areas to provide key information, including available services, how patients could provide feedback and typical treatment costs. This was supported by onscreen QR codes for patients and relatives to access.

Information relating to all aspects of patient care was available in both digital and paper formats. These materials could all produced in different languages through the organisation’s internal systems, helping to meet the diverse communication needs of patients.

Staff also had access to external translation services and could arrange British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters in advance for appointments and surgery admissions when required. 
 

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 were encouraged to give feedback on their care throughout their surgical journey. Staff actively encouraged patients to share their experiences to support learning and drive service improvements. Feedback and compliments were shared with the staff involved in delivering care. Patients told us they were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about treatment plans. 
 

Leaders promoted a culture in which patient feedback, concerns and complaints were valued. Staff understood how to handle complaints appropriately and received feedback on the outcomes of investigations. The surgical service received 6 complaints in the 6 months prior to our assessment. All of which had been acknowledged and responded to in line with the service’s complaints policy. 
 

The complaints policy clearly outlined the process and timeframes for handling complaints. Patients were provided with information explaining how to raise a concern or make a complaint and were sign posted to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) if they remained dissatisfied following the completion of the hospital’s complaints process. 
 

Leaders viewed complaints and concerns as important opportunities for learning and improvement. They were able to demonstrate how learning from feedback and complaints had been used to inform changes and improvements to everyday practice. 
 

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.
 

Surgical services were available to both NHS and privately funded patients and required a referral by a consultant. Information about accessing surgery was clearly available on the service’s public website, including indicative treatment costs and options for treatment payment plans.

The hospital provided free parking for all patients, including 8 designated disabled parking spaces. The site was accessible, with step free access to the main buildings and wide corridors to support wheelchair users. Signage was clear, visible and easy to understand.

Leaders ensured there was adequate medical cover through daily and weekly service provision meetings. A Resident Medical Officer was available 24 hours on site to support staff and respond to any deterioration in patients’ conditions or other clinical escalations.

Patient discharges were planned post operatively to support good patient flow through the service. Patients requiring a longer inpatient stay following surgery received revised discharge plans to meet their ongoing needs. Day surgery patients who were not yet fit for discharge were accommodated in an inpatient ward bed until they were clinically ready to return home safely.

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 told us they had received training and support in recognising patients who may be vulnerable to health inequalities. There was a positive culture of inclusion throughout the service, and patients were encouraged and empowered to give their views and experience of care. Staff training was delivered in line with Human Rights Act 1998 and supported staff in meeting the needs of patients with protected characteristics.

Leaders monitored surgical outcomes to ensure standards of care were consistently maintained across all patient groups. This included reviewing patient feedback and other quality measures to inform decisions about service delivery and patient safety.

Discharge planning was tailored to optimise outcomes for all patients, including those with protected characteristics. Where appropriate, carers, family members and community-based services were involved to encourage to support recovery and help patients return to their pre-admission level of health and independence.

The service scored 92% for having a dementia friendly environment and 86% for being disability friendly in the 2025 patient led assessments of the care environment (PLACE) report. 
 

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 support patients to make decisions about their care and treatment. Where appropriate, advance decision making and ‘do not resuscitate’ documents were discussed during surgery pre-admission. Staff then created personalised plans to support patient needs, wishes and feelings. Where appropriate, family and carers were included in this discussion.

Teams were supported by a clear framework for advance care planning and decision making. This included an end-of-life care policy, guidance on advance decisions to refuse treatment and mandatory yearly training to ensure staff had the knowledge and confidence to deliver care in line with patients’ wishes and legal requirements.