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

We looked for evidence that people were at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant patient’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients told us staff took their need and preferences into account. Patients gave positive feedback about how all staff groups treated them.

The care records we looked at showed care plans were in place that reflected peoples individual needs and preferences.

The service used systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, including those with sensory loss, mental health needs, learning disabilities and dementia.

Staff discussed patients’ specific needs with them and made reasonable adjustments to meet individual requirements during their admission.

Staff told us how they made reasonable adjustments based on patients’ individual needs. This included the allocation of extra time in the anaesthetic room if a patient was, for example, autistic or was very anxious about the procedure. Staff identified these needs at the preoperative assessment and asked additional questions to understand how best to support each patient.

Staff offered patients a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences, and catering services adapted their provision to meet patients’ needs.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Staff demonstrated an understanding of patients’ needs and provided appropriate care and treatment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The hospital treated patients that were NHS funded and patients who were privately insured or self-paying. Referrals came from GP’s or from the hospital’s partner NHS Trust. Senior leaders told us how they worked proactively with system partners to sustain NHS partnerships and support the wider NHS elective recovery plan. Managers planned and organised services to meet the needs of the local population. The hospital’s elective surgical activity helped support capacity and reduce waiting lists at the local NHS hospital.

Patients spoke positively about their care and said staff l co-ordinated it well. Patients told us staff listened to them and made them feel valued. They told us that staff involved them throughout the entire care pathway, from referral and initial pre-operative assessment through to post surgery follow up appointments.

The service held daily safety meetings with staff from across the service to discuss patients’ ongoing care and treatment. Staff also held multidisciplinary pre-operative assessment meetings to review complex cases before making decisions about suitability for surgery.

The service reported and monitored themes relating to surgical procedure cancellations and took actions to reduce cancellation rates.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients told us staff provided them with the necessary information about their care and treatment. They told us staff shared information clearly and answered any questions they had.

Information about the services was readily available on the ward we visited. Staff could provide information in different languages or other accessible formats and could access language interpreters if needed.

Staff told us they received training in information governance and confidentiality and that they could easily access information such as care records, policies and guidance relevant to their role.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people 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.

Patients told us they knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care, including how to raise any concerns or issues.

Leaders told us people, their families, and carers felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

There were 19 complaints recorded between 1 February 2025 and 31 January 2026, all of which were responded to in line with the organisation’s policy. Different themes emerged, such as conflicting information being provided and post operative complications. We saw examples of changes made in response to complaints. For example, the introduction of a checklist to ensure no procedures are scheduled until theatre availability is confirmed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients told us they received treatment in a prompt and timely manner and that they did not experience long waits when they arrived for their treatment. Patients had an initial consultation to determine whether they needed surgery, followed by a pre-operative assessment. Staff told us they planned patients care and treatment in advance so they did not experience delays in their treatment.

On the day of admission for surgery, the order of the surgical list was determined primarily by clinical factors. Priority was based on patient-specific considerations such as co-morbidities and age. For example, patients with diabetes were scheduled earlier in the day to ensure they did not go too long without treatment, nutrition and to support optimal clinical outcomes.

Leaders told us surgery was carried out 6 days a week with post operative inpatient physiotherapy provided 7 days a week, ensuring patients had sufficient access to services to improve outcomes.

The service had a surgical admissions guidance policy in place. Patients admitted for treatment were generally healthy or had mild systemic disease, and staff considered them to be at low risk of developing complications during treatment.

The service confirmed that 14 patients had returned to theatre within the previous 12 months, and 12 patients who initially underwent surgery at the hospital required readmission. Staff instigated Investigations for these cases to identify learning, and found the readmissions were attributed to recognised surgical complications.

The service used processes to identify barriers that could disadvantage different groups of people using the service. Staff took action to address these barriers and improve patient experience. This included improving accessibility for wheelchair users by ensuring they allocated a room on the ward to meet their needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff were able to give examples of how they respected the individual wishes of people with protected characteristics, such as disability and people with communication or language difficulties. Patients told us their needs and preferences had been assessed and understood by staff. Staff had completed training on equality, diversity, inclusion and belonging and compliance stood at 95%. Staff told us they did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

Leaders submit data to national registries. Data submitted in 2024/25 to the National Joint Registry (NJR) showed that mortality rates for both hip and knee replacements were within the expected range.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data collected by the provider showed that 94.5% of patients who underwent a knee replacement and 97.2% of patients who underwent a hip replacement reported an improvement in their overall health. Data also showed that 88.3% of patients who underwent cataract surgery reported an improvement in their health.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients told us staff supported them to make informed choices about their care and involved their family or carer where they wished.

Staff told us they discussed health lifestyles to support discharge and recovery following surgery. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based in line with current best practice.

Staff provided patients with discharge summaries to take home and sent copies to their GP. They arranged follow up appointments before discharge. Leaders told us staff gave patients clear information at discharge about who to contact and how to raise any concerns. Staff also provided patients with written, specific wound care instructions.