- Independent hospital
The Ridgeway Hospital
Assessment report published 16 September 2026
Ratings - Surgery
Our view of the service
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In the last inspection in 2022, we found 2 breaches of regulation in relation to policies being out of date and children’s safeguarding training not meeting national standards.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.
People's experience of this service
We spoke to 8 patients in the service, reviewed patient feedback surveys and feedback received online by the service. People spoke positively about staff, describing them as warm, kind and caring. They also told us they received effective care and treatment. Patients with protected characteristics felt supported. Patients confirmed their pain was well managed and they were supported to move around as much as possible after their operation. Patients said, “call bells were answered quite quickly, and they all felt they could get assistance if needed”. Patients told us they were given time to ask questions about their procedure and staff had checked they understood what they were having done.