Spire Cambridge Lea 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 means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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 operational team worked responsively to meet patient demand. The phlebotomy team used both the main blood‑taking room and an overflow room so they could complete same‑day blood tests requested by consultants. This helped maintain good turnaround times, even on busy days.

Clinic coordinators used 2 daily consultant lists. A main schedule and a second list for last‑minute additions. This allowed them to adjust room allocations and staffing throughout the day, so patients were seen in a timely manner.

The service expanded access by opening an outreach clinic at the St James Practice in King’s Lynn. Consultants held follow‑up appointments there so patients in the local area could receive care closer to home.

Theatres leaders used theatre 7 for ambulatory cases that did not require general anaesthetic. They scheduled lists based on the daily staffing model to ensure capacity was used efficiently and patients experienced minimal delays.

The organisation supported the local NHS by providing ENT and audiology clinics, and by managing patients with endometriosis who were waiting long periods elsewhere. As demand increased, managers planned additional inpatient capacity to maintain smooth patient flow and ensure treatment remained timely.

Leaders described a flexible model where clinic rooms, treatment rooms and theatre spaces were allocated daily according to need. This enabled the service to run specialist outpatient clinics, reduce theatre loan kit, support partner NHS trusts and absorb 76 NHS patients when additional capacity was required.

The service responded to peaks in demand by adjusting capacity for dermatology, ENT, urology and ophthalmology clinics. Although virtual consultations were offered in limited circumstances, staff prioritised face‑to‑face access because patients preferred it and felt more involved in their care.

Weekly rapid‑response meetings enabled timely escalation of risks and fast implementation of learning. Shared learning, including national incident themes, was used to improve services across all sites and support consistent, patient‑centred practice.

Staff balanced professional development with safe staffing. When colleagues attended training, teams adjusted cover to maintain continuity in areas such as pharmacy and theatres.

An electronic temperature‑monitoring system supported safe medication storage. Alerts were sent directly to pharmacy, and a backup system ensured continuity. The Trinity Suite, used for orthopaedics and audiology, had carpet for sound‑dampening reasons and was deep‑cleaned and steam‑cleaned to maintain hygiene as part of the sound‑controlled environment.

Chaperone information was displayed throughout the department. Patients were informed in advance about their right to a chaperone and were asked whether they wished to have one, supporting comfort, dignity and choice during consultations.

The service coordinated care across teams and partner organisations, so people experienced a seamless pathway. Clinicians ran on‑site clinics, and shared‑care arrangements, such as visiting specialists for cochlear implants. This meant patients did not have to repeat assessments or travel unnecessarily, supporting continuity of treatment.

Staff reviewed risks and care plans collaboratively through the electronic pre‑operative assessment system, enabling nurses, anaesthetists and relevant specialists to agree next steps and maintain consistent decisions as people moved between outpatient, diagnostic and surgical settings.

Daily clinical alerts kept pharmacy, therapy teams and other allied health professionals aligned to any changes, so medication, rehabilitation and follow‑up could be adjusted promptly.

Weekly multidisciplinary planning meetings looked ahead to staffing, equipment and anticipated needs, reducing handover gaps and ensuring people saw the right clinician at the right time.

Diagnostics were integrated into outpatient flows, with phlebotomy offering both booked and same‑day appointments to minimise delays and keep investigations within the same episode of care. For people undergoing complex procedures, structured follow‑up was built in, ensuring results, advice and rehabilitation were coordinated and that patients had clear points of contact.

Translation and interpretation support, quiet spaces and an alternative reception area helped people engage with their care in ways that suited them, reinforcing choice and control while maintaining a consistent team around the patient.

Proactive oversight of waiting times, including adding clinics when pressure built in specific specialties, helped preserve continuity with named clinicians and avoided breaks in treatment.

Staff followed the Patient Health Records Policy, which set out how paper records were created, stored and destroyed. The policy brought all guidance into a single framework and ensured compliance with UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This meant information was handled safely and in line with national standards for confidentiality and data security.

Staff monitored occasions where records might not be available and reported these through the incident system. From September 2025 to February 2026, no incidents were recorded, demonstrating that patient information was consistently available when needed.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard and offered information in formats tailored to individual needs. Staff could access translation and interpretation services, and information leaflets were available in different languages when required.

Dementia‑friendly resources, quiet spaces and alternative reception areas supported people who needed adjustments to understand and process information more comfortably.

Staff ensured people knew how to access information about their treatments, their rights and how to raise concerns. Clinicians kept families and carers informed when patients wished, helping everyone involved remain updated about progress and next steps in treatment.

Virtual appointments were used selectively where clinically appropriate, helping some patients receive information and advice in a way that suited their circumstances. Outreach clinics and new diagnostic services, such as HyCoSy, also gave people access to local information and streamlined pathways, reducing the need to travel for guidance, test results or follow‑up discussions.

Patients were encouraged to share their views and felt confident raising concerns. Patient feedback for January 2026 showed consistently high satisfaction, with 98% rating their experience positively and 95% feeling well informed and treated with dignity and respect. People highlighted supportive staff, clear communication and a clean, modern environment.

Leaders reviewed this feedback regularly and acted on themes identified. For example, in response to requests for improved post‑procedure support, the service introduced a designated stitch‑removal clinic. “You said, we did” boards were displayed so patients could see the changes made.

Leaders monitored comments raised through patient forums and other feedback routes to understand what was working well and where improvements were needed. Some patients raised concerns about appointment booking, delays and aspects of the pre‑operative assessment process. Leaders responded by improving how pre‑operative test requirements were recorded, reviewing triage processes, checking call‑handling systems and strengthening communication during appointments.

Complaints and concerns were reviewed through clinical governance meetings. Themes included communication and, less frequently, concerns about clinical advice. These were explored to ensure learning was shared and improvements implemented.

Staff said the outpatient manager and senior leadership team were more visible than before, carrying out regular walk‑arounds and responding promptly to issues, which helped people feel heard and supported. Compliments were also reviewed to recognise good practice and reinforce positive behaviours across the team.

Staff ensured equitable access by making all facilities available to patients and visitors, with dedicated disabled parking, accessible toilets and staff on hand to offer assistance when needed.

Staff followed the Accessible Information Standard and recorded communication or information needs at the first point of contact. Adjustments were arranged for people who were deaf, blind, had a learning disability, autism, dementia or other communication difficulties, ensuring everyone could understand their care and participate in decisions. Interpreters, alternative communication formats and support for mobility needs were arranged when required.

Referrals were prioritised by clinical need so that patients with the most urgent conditions were seen first, regardless of whether they were NHS or private. NHS waiting lists were checked regularly to ensure no one approached their referral‑to‑treatment breach date, and booking teams scheduled appointments promptly for anyone nearing a breach.

Staff monitored “Did Not Attend” rates and reviewed trends routinely; no patient groups required targeted work during the reporting period. When consultants missed clinics, this was escalated, reviewed and addressed to protect patient access.

Access was also supported by efficient clinic throughput and real‑time oversight of delays. The outpatient nursing team monitored patient arrival times and kept people updated if clinics were running late. Delay‑related incidents were rare, 10 out of 6,592 clinics (0.015%) and each was reviewed with actions taken to prevent recurrence. Where consultants regularly started late or overran, appointment lengths or start times were adjusted, and issues were escalated when needed to maintain timely access.

Discharge information was shared promptly to support continuity of care. Staff checked GP details at each appointment and sent electronic discharge letters immediately following consultations. Patients also received printed copies so they could share information directly if digital transfer failed, ensuring no delays in follow‑up care.

Between August 2025 and January 2026, 14 outpatient clinics were cancelled due to consultant availability. All affected patients were rebooked, and cancellations were logged as incidents in line with the practising‑privileges policy. Repeat issues were reviewed at consultants’ biennial reviews, and managers contributed “soft intelligence” when more timely intervention was needed. This process helped maintain fair and consistent access to appointments.

The service sought regular feedback from people using the outpatient department, including those who might be at risk of poorer experience or outcomes. Electronic surveys were sent after first consultations, and Business Intelligence teams supplied patient contact lists several times a week to ensure feedback was gathered consistently. Between February 2025 and January 2026, 722 people responded. Although almost all rated their experience positively, staff reviewed the small number of negative responses to identify whether any groups were experiencing inequality or needed additional support. This helped the team recognise emerging themes and adjust processes to maintain a patient‑centred service.

The organisation promoted a culture where people felt able to share their views openly, and staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. This supported staff to recognise when individuals might face barriers in communication, understanding or engagement, and to tailor their approach accordingly.

Policies were subject to equality impact assessments to ensure they did not disadvantage people with protected characteristics or those who were more vulnerable. This approach enabled the service to adapt care, communication and support in ways that improved experiences and outcomes for all patients.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care by giving clear explanations and ensuring people had time to consider their options. When patients had reduced capacity, staff involved safeguarding leads and the wider team to ensure decisions reflected the person’s wishes and best interests.

Communication needs were identified early, and interpreters or alternative formats were provided so people could take part fully in discussions about their treatment and next steps.

For patients with complex needs, clinicians worked with relevant specialists to ensure follow‑up care was coordinated, particularly after major procedures. This helped people understand what to expect and plan for the next stage of their recovery in a way that was sensitive, clear and well supported