Chaucer 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

This meant we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. We assessed all quality statements.

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

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. Staff provided person-centred care and adjusted help to ensure people could access services. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for their treatment.

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.

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.

The hospital had a process for managing referrals through the NHS e-Referral Service (eRS) to optimise patient choice, ensure timely access to care, and uphold clinical governance standards. Consultants who chose to undertake NHS work at Chaucer Hospital were listed on the eRS. This supported patients and GPs to select their preferred clinician.

Staff were trained in the Information Access Policy during induction, and we did not see any complaints or incidents (in the previous 12 months), related to information access.

The service encouraged staff to highlight concerns during huddles or pre-operative briefings. Theatre teams worked with ward staff to support patients’ individual needs and preferences. They met patients on the ward if they were very anxious and gave them additional time and support.

Staff gave patients a health questionnaire, which included communication and information support needs. This prompted staff to request and organise additional support in advance of surgery. The hospital made sure alternative formats (such as large font print or braille), were provided as required.

The service monitored waiting times to ensure timely access to care. Staff maintained an effective referral-to-treatment-time management process. The reservations team monitored this weekly. The service actively prioritised patients to reduce waiting times and ensured patients were treated within the 52-week pathway.

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 had created additional disabled parking spaces in response to their most recent feedback from their Patient Led Assessment of the Care Environment (PLACE) audit. The additional spaces were created close to the main reception and outpatient department for ease of access. This was an improvement from our previous assessment.

The hospital had a patient experience lead to ensure patients with information or communication needs relating to a disability, impairment or sensory loss received accessible information and communication support.

Staff told us they asked patients their preferred name (on admission), and recorded this in their notes. They told us they routinely discussed additional communication or information support needs. This included discussions about cognitive difficulties with family or advocates, and staff recorded their requests and feedback.

All patients received a wellbeing call 48-hours following discharge. Staff told us there was specific guidance to help ensure the practitioner asked suitable clinical questions and concerns were escalated to a senior team member. Patients could be asked to return to the hospital for a clinical review or signposted to other services (dependent on the concern).

Patients having joint surgery, saw a physiotherapist on a one-to-one basis with tailored information specific to their post-operative recovery. Patients were given pre-operative and post-operative exercises and assessed for need of occupational therapy or support from social services.

Patient feedback highlighted a desire to enhance the hospital outdoor area. In response to this, leaders launched a staff-led gardening club which had brought meaningful improvements to the hospital grounds. The gardens included an established herb garden and donated apple trees. Staff felt the flower garden provided a tranquil space for patients and the garden herbs were used to compliment hospital food for patients and staff.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patient information was provided in the most suitable method for each patient. For example, easy-read form, large text and braille. There was a clear process to request interpreters and translators, and staff told us they did not use family or friends to translate. They booked interpreters in advance of appointments and surgery.

There was an array of information leaflets to enhance patient knowledge of care and expected experience. For example, the hospital admission booklet which provided a general oversight of expected care and experience. In addition, more general information was available on the hospital website which included information about private healthcare, costs and the need to transfer to the local NHS trust in the event of complications.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The hospital had a comprehensive website which included detailed information about departments and treatments, consultant profiles and specialties, booking options for private GP appointments, pricing and payment plans for private treatments.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Patients received information leaflets during consultations, admissions and following discharge which provided information on pre- and post-operative care, treatment details, safety netting advice on discharge and contact details. In addition, we saw evidence (in care notes), that patients were provided with written information to support informed decisions and were involved in the assessment of their needs.

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 had an effective process for monitoring and oversight of complaints and response times. Between June 2024 and May 2025 data showed 100% compliance with complaint management for both acknowledgement and full responses in line with the provider’s complaints policy.

We saw changes were made in response to complaints and patient feedback. For example, feedback highlighted that a patient who had a history of trauma found invasive procedures distressing. Trauma cards were implemented in response and available in all reception areas. This enabled effected patients to take a trauma card and share it with the healthcare professional (hcp) during their appointment. Patients were able to highlight their hidden trauma, raise awareness and this enabled the hcp to access potential support (with consent).

The hospital held patient participation group meetings every 3-months. Staff and patients discussed feedback and shared ideas for improvements. The meetings were patient-led, and we saw actions that showed changes were made in response to patient feedback. This helped to ensure the service was designed to meet local needs.

The hospital did not operate a strict visiting policy but did encourage visits from 2pm to 10pm. These hours were designed to give clinical staff the necessary time to carry out essential post-operative checks and care, whilst also giving patients the opportunity to rest and recover in a calm environment. Staff told us flexibility was important to support patient wellbeing and individual circumstances and choice. The hospital also offered a meal ordering service for visitors to dine with their relative/friend during their stay.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

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.

Staff kept patients informed of waiting times in the pre-assessment clinic, , surgical ward and out-patient department.

Staff called patients the day before their admission to the hospital. This was to confirm patient attendance and discuss what the patient was required to bring into hospital. They ensured patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to check on their welfare and determine why they did not attend.

Patients were provided with post-procedure advice. This included when and how to escalate concerns post-discharge and included a dedicated telephone number to call.

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.

The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes

Staff completed mandatory training in equality and diversity, and compliance was 99.4% when we visited. Leaders provided targeted educational awareness for staff to coincide with awareness campaigns such as World Alzheimer’s Day, World Autism Day and Coeliac Awareness Month.

Staff celebrated diversity throughout the year. For example, they served Chinese food in the hospital restaurant to celebrate Chinese New Year and bunting and flags to celebrate Pride month. In addition, the hospital showed a commitment to support equality and diversity. For example, they had changed a single sex toilet to gender-neutral and ran fundraising events to support several charities.

The hospital was on 1 floor so accessible to patients with a physical disability. There were accessible toilets, easy access showers with no steps, handrails and stools in showers to support mobility. The service had access to an interpreting and translation service, and leaflets were available in different languages.

The hospital held regular meetings to focus on patient experience and feedback. These meetings were called ‘patient hour’ which focused on quality discussions to understand performance, patient satisfaction and required improvements. This included celebrating success and ongoing innovation.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported by planning 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 updated patient records after each appointment to ensure any discussions between the patient and staff were recorded and any actions that had been agreed were logged.

Pre-assessment staff ensured appointments were planned to meet the needs of patients. For example, preferred days and timings. Staff worked well together as an effective multidisciplinary team throughout the patient journey. Pharmacists, physiotherapists and consultants ensured patients were fit for discharge and pain was managed.
Processes ensured patients were not discriminated against and care and treatment were equitable for patients who were unable to speak up for themselves.