Spire Cambridge Lea Hospital

Updated 27 August 2026

We assessed Spire Cambridge Lea Hospital on 11 February 2026. This was a fully comprehensive assessment carried out because the service's previous rating was aged. The last inspection had taken place in December 2016. The assessment was required to ensure the current quality and safety of the service were accurately reflected.

Spire Cambridge Lea Hospital is registered with CQC to carry out the regulated activities of treatment of disease, disorder and injury, diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, services in slimming clinics and surgical procedures. The service had a Registered Manager and a Controlled Drugs Accountable Officer.

At this assessment, we assessed 3 service areas: surgery, diagnostics and imaging, and outpatients.

We visited the following areas as part of our assessment: surgical wards, theatres, recovery, outpatients, and diagnostics and imaging. We rated this location as Good.

Updated 6 January 2026

Safe:

Diagnostic imaging services provided at this location included: x-ray, CT scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for adults and children between the ages of 4 and 17 years. The service provides a wide range of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations and serves the host NHS hospital. The service accepted referrals from private patients and NHS patients referred from the NHS through the integrated care board (ICB) contracts and GP referrals.

The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience in the departments 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 patient, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated.

Effective:

Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment was based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patient’s comfort was observed throughout the procedures

Where necessary staff assessed and managed patients nutritional and hydration needs. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

Caring:

Patients were treated 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 from allied health professionals.

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. Patients were involved in making decisions about their care and understood the need for the recommended diagnostic procedures. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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 understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders had sound oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems. Staff with protected characteristics felt supported. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.

Updated 6 January 2026

The assessment took place on 11 February 2026. It was a fully comprehensive assessment, carried out because the service’s previous rating was aged. The last inspection had been completed in December 2016. This assessment was required to ensure the current quality and safety of the service were accurately reflected.

We rated the service as good because staff continued to provide care that was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People received support from staff who understood their needs and delivered care in a consistent and person‑centred way. Staff treated people with kindness and respected their dignity, and feedback from those using the service was generally positive about the quality of care provided. Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from harm, and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Care was delivered in line with good practice guidance, and people were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff had the skills and knowledge they needed, and there was evidence of effective teamwork and communication. People’s care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs, enabling staff to provide coordinated and personalised support. The service responded well to people’s concerns and worked in partnership with other agencies when needed. Leaders promoted an open and inclusive culture and maintained oversight of the service through regular checks and audits. Staff felt supported and able to raise issues.

However, staff reported that some consultants still saw patients without formal referrals and that they did not always receive essential information.

Updated 6 January 2026

Spire Cambridge Lea Hospital is an independent hospital located in Impington, north of Cambridge. It primarily serves the communities of Cambridge, Suffolk and Peterborough, while also accepting patients from further afield through private medical insurance, self‑pay arrangements and NHS contracts.

The hospital provides a range of surgical services for adults. Facilities include 19 day‑case beds, and a 44 private room bedded inpatient ward. There are six operating theatres, three of which have laminar flow and an endoscopy suite.

The service had enough staff to care for people and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and managed infection risks well. They assessed risks to people and acted on them. Premises, facilities and equipment were clean and well-maintained, medicines were managed well and incidents were investigated in a timely manner with focus on learning and improvement.

Staff assessed people’s health needs and provided good care and treatment with positive care outcomes. They monitored people’s nutritional needs and managed pain relief. Staff worked well together and with service partners for the benefit of patients. Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients.

Staff treated people with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs and choices. Staff were alert and responsive to people’s needs and provided emotional support to patients to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. The service had systems in place to support staff with their wellbeing, safe working and emotional support. Staff spoke positively about the support they had received from managers.

Updated 5 December 2016

Outpatient and diagnostic imaging services were rated as good for safe, caring, responsive and well-led. Effective was inspected but not rated.

There was an open culture of reporting and staff were encouraged to learn. There was a clear process in place for ensuring that consultants’ practising privileges were monitored.

Patients were provided with appropriate information to inform them about their hospital visit, including a hospital letter and any relevant patient information leaflets.

All consultants who saw children, and relevant members of the outpatients staff, were trained to level three safeguarding children and young people. There was a registered nurse (child branch) to support paediatric patients and their families or carers.

Staff had a good level of knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had good knowledge in relation to consent and mental capacity.

Monthly monitoring of patient waiting times for clinics was recorded. Patients we spoke with told us that generally they did not have to wait for more than five to 10 minutes once they had arrived to go into their appointment. “Did not attend” (DNA) monthly rates were recorded and the hospital had a tracking system in place to monitor this.

Patient feedback was positive and patients spoke highly of the care they had received. “You said, we did” posters were displayed in patient waiting areas and chaperones services were available at patients’ request.

Governance systems were well established and there was evidence of good communication through the relevant committees to staff. Patient feedback was sought through surveys which enabled developments and service improvements.