The Ridgeway Hospital

Updated 16 September 2026

Date of assessment: 3 and 4 June 2026.

The Ridgeway Hospital is operated by the Circle Health Group and provides a range of services including surgery, endoscopy and outpatient services. The hospital provides care and treatment for adults over the age of 18. The hospital has 38 inpatient beds with 28 single rooms and a 4 bedded bay for patients required to stay in hospital following surgery. The Ambulatory Care Unit has 2 bays with 5 cubicles and a single rooms for patients admitted for day case surgery. The operating suite has 3 operating theatres, and the service also uses a designated endoscopy room for minor operations. The service has access to diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy, outpatient follow up and an onsite pharmacy.

We carried out an unannounced assessment on 3 and 4 June 2026. As part of our assessment, we looked at 8 patient records, spoke with 8 patients, 1 relative and 40 members of staff.

This assessment looked at surgery because we received information concerning surgical services. The surgery rating remains good overall. However, at this assessment we identified 1 breach of the regulations in relation to good governance.

The rating of surgical services has been combined with the ratings of the other services from the last inspection. See our previous report to get a full picture of all the other services at The Ridgeway Hospital. The rating of The Ridgeway Hospital remains ‘Good.’

Updated 16 April 2026

Date of assessment: 3 June 2026 to 22 June 2026

We carried out a responsive assessment of surgical care due to concerns being raised with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The service was rated as ‘good’ over all in the last inspection in 2022, with the safe key question rated as ‘requires improvement’.

In the last inspection in 2022, we found 2 breaches of regulation in relation to policies being out of date and children’s safeguarding training not meeting national standards. During this inspection, we found the service had made improvements. Staff received children’s safeguarding training at the level required for their role and almost all policies and standard operating procedures were reviewed when they were due and referenced current legal frameworks, codes of practice and national guidance.

Surgical services provided at this location included orthopaedic, colorectal (relating to the colon and the rectum), ear, nose and throat, foot and ankle, general surgery, hand and wrist, spinal, cosmetic and ophthalmology surgery. There was one surgical in-patient ward where patients were cared for following surgery. There was a pre-assessment unit, an ambulatory surgery unit where patients who received day case surgery were cared for.

We assessed all quality statements across safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We have rated surgical services as ‘Good’, meaning the rating remains the same. However, we found 1 breach of regulation relating to ‘good governance’.

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and lessons learned and improvements were identified and shared with staff. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and safe systems of working.

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience to ensure high quality care and treatment. Managers made sure staff received training and had regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care.

Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated. However, we found some gaps in the daily checking of emergency equipment and some items which had expired. We raised these concerns with service leaders, who took immediate action and implemented changes while we were still onsite.

Effective:

Patients and those close to them when required, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed risk assessments taking account of patient’s physical, emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment were based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patients’ pain was quickly identified and well managed.

Staff assessed patients nutritional and hydration needs, made sure patients had sufficient to eat and drink or alternatives as needed. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them give informed consent.

Caring:

Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff responded to patients in a timely way. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions and were given access to specialist services, including from allied health professionals. Staff wellbeing was a priority and staff had career development opportunities.

Responsive:

Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided information which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback, knew who to speak with if they had concerns and were confident the service took their concerns seriously.

The service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access.

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback.

Well-led:

Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust.

Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff we spoke with understood their roles and responsibilities.

There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff being able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.

However, although there was an effective governance structure and risk management systems, governance processes were not always effective to identify gaps in audits to ensure these were addressed. This was a breach of regulation.

Updated 29 June 2022

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

• The service had enough staff to care for patients. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. 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.

Medical care 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 in safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led.

Updated 29 June 2022

Diagnostic imaging 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 previously inspected diagnostic imaging jointly with outpatients so we cannot compare our ratings with previous ones. We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive and well-led. We do not rate effective in diagnostic and imaging services.

• 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. 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 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, 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.

Updated 29 June 2022

Outpatients 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 previously inspected outpatients jointly with diagnostic imaging so we cannot compare our ratings with previous ones. We rated this service as good because it was caring, and responsive, and well led. We do not rate effective in Outpatients.

In the outpatient department there were 12 consulting rooms, including a dedicated ophthalmic room, ear nose and throat room and a treatment room for minor procedures. Clinics were held from 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday in audiology, cardiology, dermatology, dietetics, ear, nose and throat (ENT), gastroenterology, general medicine, general surgery, gynaecology, haematology, neurology, oncology, ophthalmology, orthopaedic, pain management, pathology, psychiatry, cosmetic plastic surgery, reconstructive plastic surgery, podiatry, psychology, radiology, rheumatology, sports and exercise medicine and urology. The clinics were able to extend providing a service on Saturdays if required.

The physiotherapy department has a gymnasium with 3 treatment cubicles, a hydrotherapy pool and 3 separate consulting/treatment rooms. Sessions were held from 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday with the ability to provide a service on Saturdays if required. From September 2020 to August 2021 there were 6,510 patients seen in outpatients.

During our inspection, we visited the outpatients’ department where clinics in general medicine, general surgery, ophthalmology, orthopaedics, ENT, oncology and urology were being held. We also visited the physiotherapy outpatient department. We spoke with five patients and 16 members of staff, including managers, doctors, nurses, allied health care professionals, health care assistants and non-clinical staff.

We rated Outpatients 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 and acted on them. 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 and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity 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 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:

• Consultants did not consistently keep contemporaneous patient records.
• Not all staff received the appropriate levels of safeguarding children training in line with the intercollegiate guidance documents.
• Not all staff had enough knowledge of the mental capacity act and its code of practice to enable them to support all patients to make decisions about their care.
• Staff did not always have the skills, or tools available, to enable them to support patients with additional communication needs.
• Not all areas of the estate were kept visibly clean.

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