Chaucer Hospital

Updated 6 April 2026

Chaucer Hospital is an independent hospital located in Canterbury, Kent and is operated by Circle Health Group. The service primarily serves the communities of Canterbury, Faversham, and Dover. It also accepts patient referrals from outside these areas. Chaucer Hospital provides surgery, endoscopy, medical care including oncology, outpatients, and diagnostic imaging services to people over the age of 18. Specialties include orthopaedics, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, ophthalmology, and cosmetic surgery.

Care and treatment are provided to NHS-funded patients and people who have private medical insurance or who self-fund. The service has 35 beds with en-suite spread over 2 wards. Facilities include 2 main theatres, an accredited endoscopy suite, an accredited oncology suite, outpatients with 1 minor procedure room and diagnostic facilities.

The service has magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, X-ray, and digital mammography (a digital image of the breast) within its imaging department. The service also offers services such as physiotherapy and on-site pharmacy and restaurant.

The assessment service groups provided are medical care (including older people’s care), diagnostic imaging, outpatients, and surgery.

We commenced a responsive assessment of surgery services following information of concern. This assessment looked at surgery services and covered 2 key questions, safe and well-led. We rated surgery as good.

The rating of surgery has been combined with the ratings of the other services from the last assessments. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all other services at Chaucer Hospital.

Following this assessment our overall location rating of Chaucer Hospital remains good.

Updated 28 November 2025

The surgery facilities include 2 operating theatres, 2 anaesthetic rooms and 3 recovery bays. There are 35 en-suite bedrooms, across 2 wards and a pre-assessment area. The service has access to, diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy, outpatients, on-site pharmacy, endoscopy and medical care (including oncology) within the hospital.

The main service provided by the hospital was surgery for adult patients. Specialties include orthopaedics, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, ophthalmology, and cosmetic surgery.

When we last assessed surgery services at the hospital on 1 May 2025, we rated the service good in all 5 key questions and good overall.

We carried out this focused unannounced assessment on 3 December 2025 following information of concern. We assessed the surgery service using our single assessment framework and looked at 2 key questions: safe and well-led. Through the assessment of these 2 key questions, the overall rating for surgery services remained good.

We found that the service had a strong culture of learning and improvement, where staff felt able to raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents and shared learning. Staff understood safeguarding and protected people from abuse. The care environment was in good condition, with sufficient equipment and enough trained staff to provide safe care. Staff managed infection risks, assessed risks to people, and managed medicines well.

The service had a shared vision, values, and strategic objectives. Governance processes were effective, and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders were respected, visible, and inclusive, and staff felt valued and able to speak up. Leaders managed risks well, and innovation was encouraged. The service embedded national Green Theatre sustainability initiatives and encouraged collaboration and problem solving through SWARM meetings.

The hospital had higher transfer‑out rates than similar hospitals. The service reviewed this performance, shared learning to identify improvements, and had taken action to address this.

The service had clear admission criteria, strengthened pre‑assessment processes, and completed theatre safety checks.

Updated 6 May 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Medicine is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well led.

Updated 6 May 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to drink. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and had access to good information. Key services were available to suit patients' needs.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Patient safety information was not always complete in MRI referral forms.
• The x-ray door was not always locked when radiation was in use.
• The MRI scanner had a significant layer of dust on it.
• Patient areas did not always display information on how to raise a complaint.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

Updated 6 May 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available five days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Not all staff were aware of the hospital's top risks.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well led.

Updated 6 March 2017

We regulate this service but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate it. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

BMI The Chaucer Hospital had performed two surgical Termination of pregnancy’s (ToP) within the reporting period. Due to the low numbers of procedures, we were unable to discuss experiences with patients during this inspection. However we reviewed both patient records and were able to review hospital policy and procedures around ToP.

We found that the hospital followed current guidance for ToP. In the two records we looked at we saw that this guidance had been followed and that both patients had received safe care.