The Ridgeway 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

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

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 service made usually sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff completed specific ‘patient alert’ care plans for patients who needed additional support for example for a patient who was very anxious and a patient who had dementia to ensure they received safe and compassionate care. During the inspection, we observed a patient with dementia receiving an operation. Staff were aware of the patient’s dementia and made adjustments to support their comfort and communicate effectively.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences. The catering services adapted to the needs of the patients.

We reviewed 8 patient records and care plans to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. Patient records were paper based although there was a plan to transition to electronic patient records in the future. For example, records showed staff discussed treatment plans with people, obtained informed consent and recorded individual needs and preferences to support personalised care.

In line with national guidance, private and self-funding people received information about all anticipated costs and demonstrated an understanding of the costs associated with their treatment, including future surgery and the management of potential complications.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant. Most patients accessed care either through insurance payment or self-payment with only 5% (January to December 2025) being NHS patients.

Staff considered the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of poorer experience of care.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements. There were effective systems to ensure medical secretaries followed up any patient that had not attended appointments and rescheduled the appointments in partnership with the patient involved.

Patients told us care met their individual circumstances as far as possible and told us they felt supported to make informed choices. Feedback reflected that patients felt reassured, listened to with staff taking time to ensure care and decisions were aligned with what mattered to them.

The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff shared information with patients that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that met their individual needs. The service worked to ensure they were compliant with the Accessible Information Standards (a legal requirement to ensure all patients can receive information in an accessible format to meet their needs). There were embedded practices to obtain information about communication needs from all patients contacting the service.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health. We asked if information was available in alternative languages and were shown how required leaflets could be produced in many languages. Information was also available on the service’s website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated. We saw leaflets about how to make a ‘comment, compliment or complaint’ which was available in 20 different languages.

The service had contracts with 2 external providers of interpreting and translation services to ensure optimal coverage for patients who needed additional assistance.

When information about patients was collected, it was shared in a manner that mostly met data protection legislation requirements. However, data showed there had been 27 incidents of data protection breaches reported in the 12 months prior to our inspection.

The service generally made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Leaflets were readily available advising patients and their next of kin about how to ‘comment, compliment or make a complaint’ about the care they had received. Staff encouraged patients to provide feedback using online feedback and reviews to help other patients to make informed decisions about their healthcare options. The hospital’s website showed patient satisfaction rating of 4.8/5 from 998 reviews. Patient comments included “Exceptional facilities, I was warmly welcomed at reception. The facilities are bright and exceptionally clean and well maintained” and “thought the hospital and staff were brilliant. Staff were friendly and the hospital itself clean and tidy”.

Complaints or concerns were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in a timely manner. Data showed the service had received 70 complaints in the last 12 months prior to our inspection, of these 8 (11%) related to surgical services. Service leaders investigated the complaints, and 1 complaint was upheld (accepted) while another complaint was ‘partially upheld’. Service leaders responded to complaints in a timely manner with 100% of complaints being resolved within a 3 months’ timeframe for the last 7 months prior to our inspection.

We reviewed the investigation outcome of 2 of formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy. The complaint response included information about how to escalate a complaint to a level 2 investigation.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice.

The service usually made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Managers monitored waiting times, where this was necessary and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets. Data received from the hospital following the inspection showed the average wait time for NHS treatments was 8 weeks (general surgery), 22 weeks (ophthalmology) and 16 weeks for patients waiting for hand and wrist surgery. The service did not provide waiting times for private patients.

The operating theatres were not booked all the time. Data showed the theatre utilisation was between 39% and 47% between June 2025 and May 2026. Leaders told us they could increase activity and monitored this closely and explained it was a balance between ensuring the right support to avoid staff burn out.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and within national targets and guidance. There had been 53 cancellations of surgical procedures in the 12 months prior to our inspection. The main reasons recorded for these cancellations were recorded as ‘clinical reasons’ (23%) and patient cancelling their operation (20%). Data showed 40 operations (75%) was rebooked. When the rebooked data was more than 28 days following the initial date, the reason was recorded either as patient choice or consultant availability.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Staff planned patients discharge carefully and liaised with GPs and community services when patients had complex need.

Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes. Additional information regarding patient demographics and protected characteristics was obtained for feedback in the outpatient department. Although this feedback was not specifically about surgical services, most patients would attend the outpatient department and could provide feedback about their whole experience.

Circle Health Group (CHG) and The Ridgeway Hospital worked with groups championing the needs of different groups with protected characteristics to educate staff on how they could adapt service provision to meet individuals’ different needs. This included a session delivered by Mencap on how staff could support reasonable adjustment needs, co-produced and delivered by people with reasonable adjustment needs. Another session was delivered by the ADHD Foundation on how teams could more effectively support patients with ADHD and Dyslexia. A further Deaf Awareness session was delivered by one of the CHG’s interpreting and translation partner, produced by an individual with a hearing impairment.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreter services by telephone.

Discharge arrangements optimised the outcomes for all patients, including those with protected characteristics. Where necessary, carers and community services were involved to encourage and support a return to the patient’s pre-admission condition.

Service leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services. Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers and to improve people’s experience. For example, when incidents happened, service leaders considered the patient’s demographics to ensure there had not been any barriers to good care and treatment including protected characteristics in line with the Equality Act.

Patients were usually supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer if they wished. Patients told us they were involved in their decisions about their care and were offered the opportunity to give their views. Staff invited patients to come back to the hospital for follow up appointments as needed.

Staff discussed health lifestyles for going home and recovery from the patient's operation. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice.

Discharge summaries were given to the patient to take home and for their GP and follow up appointments were made before discharge.