Springfield Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Patients underwent a pre-procedure assessment, prior to admission to the endoscopy service. The assessment process identified key risks and staff ensured patients’ health, wellbeing, and communication needs were fully assessed.

The service had clear criteria to determine who could be treated safely at the hospital. As part of the pre-procedure assessment process, people with certain conditions were excluded from receiving treatment at the hospital. This meant most people treated at the hospital were considered to be low risk.

Staff shared key information to keep patients safe when handing over their care to others. Handovers included all necessary key information to keep patients safe.

Oncology patients told us that consultants and pharmacists discussed long-term pain management with them. They also praised the team's prompt response to pain and chemotherapy side effects.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance. We also saw notice boards displaying up to date guidance for staff. Staff at the service had access to these policies through the intranet.

Staff provided patients undergoing endoscopy procedures with clear instructions on nutrition and hydration before their appointment. They provided bowel preparation guidance, explaining the importance of following a specific diet and taking prescribed medication to clear the bowel to improve the quality and accuracy of the examination. Staff explained the benefits and potential side effects of this medication to patients.

The endoscopy unit had been accredited by JAG. The most recent accreditation visit was undertaken in February 2026, and no concerns had been identified.

We reviewed the medical records of patients that had undergone endoscopy procedures. We observed evidence that staff used systems and processes to ensure they treated the correct patients throughout the patient journey. The World Health Organisation (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist was used to minimise the risk of harm.

Patients received systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT), which includes drug treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies, through structured, evidence-based pathways. Staff used recognised SACT protocols and United Kingdom Oncology Nursing Society (UKONS) triage tools to assess, monitor and respond to symptoms and deterioration.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

Staff reported healthy working relationships across staff groups, including between medical and nursing teams. We saw and heard examples of effective team working which was based on mutual respect and trust.

Staff communicated well with each other to respond promptly to people's needs. Heads of each department attended a leadership huddle meeting every morning. Managers told us that they would use this meeting to escalate any service delivery concerns.

Staff were supported by a RD (Resident Doctor) if a patient’s health deteriorated. A RD was on duty 24 hours a day and was available on site to attend any emergencies. Staff could contact consultants by telephone 24 hours a day for advice or to raise concerns about patient care. Staff told us consultants were responsive and supportive. In an emergency, staff would request an ambulance to transfer the patient to the local NHS emergency department in line with the service's deteriorating patient policy.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

Patients were provided with relevant written information about their procedure at appropriate stages of their care pathway to support informed decision making.

Health promotion was part of care provided to patients. Staff worked collaboratively to assess all aspects of general health, and to give advice and support to promote healthy lifestyles.

We observed health promotion posters and literature within the oncology service. For example, eating well with cancer information and workshops to support the wellbeing of people living with cancer.

Staff told us they provided patients with advice on how to refer or gain access to external NHS services when required, such as for counselling, smoking cessation, or alcohol liaison services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service provided patients with the opportunity to provide feedback. Leaders relayed positive patient feedback to the relevant teams. Patient audits were displayed for staff to see.

We reviewed patient feedback data for June 2026. Of 114 survey respondents, 98% rated the service as good. Where feedback indicated improvements we saw actions to address this. For example, a dedicated clinic for oncology patients requiring injections to reduce waiting times.

In line with JAG accreditation requirements, the service collected and monitored data for patients undergoing endoscopy procedures. This included data relating to the procedure itself, waiting times, and clinical outcomes. We saw evidence that this data was reviewed at regular staff meetings.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff gained patients’ consent for care and treatment wherever possible, in line with legislation and guidance. The most appropriate doctor sought consent for endoscopy procedures and discussed the benefits, potential complications, risks, and alternative treatment options.

Patients told us staff gave them clear information about their treatment to support informed consent. They described detailed discussions with consultants and nurses, supported by written information. We saw literature provided to patients explaining procedures.

The oncology department completed consent audits. Audit data for May 2026 showed a consent form for SACT treatment was completed for all patients.

We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care or treatment. Staff involved patients in decision making at all levels.

Staff told us they used interpreters to support patients to give informed consent when required, including for British Sign Language interpreters and face to face interpreting services.