Spire Little Aston 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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patient 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.

The service usually made 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 patients’ needs.

There was a small area in the corner of the outpatients waiting room for children. There were some small chairs and a table alongside information for young people in a folder and activity packs for children which could be collected from reception. There were also numbers of organisations who could provide support.

One of the treatment rooms had been designed to be child friendly with balloons and monkeys on the walls to help distract and reduce anxiety when having bloods taken. They also gave out plasters with pictures on them and bravery awards.

As per Royal College guidelines, private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned costs. There were leaflets available in waiting areas titled ‘paying for your outpatient care’. The leaflet explained how payment systems worked, including how payment would be taken and timescales for this.

Full Spire Healthcare patient terms and conditions that applied to treatment were available on the providers' web page. Patients were able to spread the cost of their surgery with a medical loan if needed. Details of this were also available for patients.

Patients were asked if they had any specific needs such as communication barriers or if they needed any other assistance. If so, they were advised to make contact before their appointment or on arrival so staff could provide any help and support.

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.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

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

There was an information security policy which covered date key points of how the hospital managed information security and information governance within Spire Healthcare and the expectations of colleagues within them.

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

A range of information was available to patients. The hospital website had a health hub which provided information to patients on health such as living with type 2 diabetes.

We asked if information was available in alternative languages and were shown how required leaflets could be produced. Information was also available on the services website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

There were quick response codes on display in the outpatient's waiting area that people could scan to find out more about specific health conditions.

The service enabled patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always 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. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about treatment plans.

Patients were involved in shaping care delivery via patient feedback. Leaders told us how surveys directly informed service design. For example, in response to a patient experience of treatment outcomes a quality improvement project in physiotherapy led to the adoption of an alternative orthotic device for patients with foot drop.

Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. People, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

Outpatients performed well in the most recent Friends and Family Test with 96% of responses deemed positive. As of 4 February 2026, Spire Little Aston Hospital demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction. 79% of patients rated their experience as very good, indicating strong performance in the areas that mattered most to them. Fewer than 1% of respondents reported a poor or very poor experience, highlighting consistently positive feedback overall.

In relation to patient experience and satisfaction with consultants as of 4 February 2026 Spire Little Aston demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction with consultants. 96% of patients would be extremely likely/likely to recommend their consultants to friends and family if they needed similar care and treatment. Fewer than 2% reported that they would not recommend them. Results showed patients were satisfied with the consultants showing understanding. Explaining everything in a way that could be understood and that they had confidence that their consultant would deliver appropriate care for them.

There was a complaints policy which was up to date and included timescales and principles. The hospital was a member of the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service.

We reviewed a sample of 3 complaints including responses and found the hospital investigated the complaint, provide an apology, advised how they could progress to the next stage of the complaint if they were not happy with the outcome. They also advised people they could request additional support if they were disabled or if their first language was not English. Leaders monitored trends in complaints and if they met the timescales for a response. Data showed that there were 50 formal complaints between 1 May 2025 and 30 April 2026 in relation to the outpatients department. Of these, 82% met the provider’s? timescales for an acknowledgement letter of 3 working days and 78% had a response within 20 working days.

We reviewed team meeting minutes and saw that complaints were discussed. Information on making a complaint was readily available to patients in the outpatient's departments and information was available in different languages.

Patients could take any unresolved complaints to a third-party organisation or to the parliamentary ombudsman if an NHS patient. Patients were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on.

Complaint themes and trends were discussed at the Patient Experience Group. There were processes in place for the management of complaints including a complaint management policy and an electronic recording and monitoring system.

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

Waiting times for appointments were not audited within the clinical audit plan; however, these were measured via patient satisfaction surveys. Results from surveys between 1 May 2025 and 30 April 2026 showed most patients felt their appointment had started on time. Waiting times were tracked allowing trends to be identified and action to be taken when needed.

Data showed that over the last 6 months there had only been 1 outpatient clinic cancelled on the day due to a consultant NHS operating list overrunning. Staff were able to tell us what they would do if a child did not attend an appointment such as contacting the guardian, sending a letter to their GP, and checking if missed appointments were a theme or trend.

The hospital complied with Accessible Information Standards. For example, identifying and recording information and asking people if they had any communication needs.

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.

There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes.

All areas of the hospital were wheelchair accessible and there was lift access. The hospital had 10 disabled parking bays and 1 disabled toilet with call bells and rails. However, we heard that car parking could be a problem at times. Leaders had taken actions to try to improve this by asking staff to park behind the building in another parking area.

The hospital had a dedicated quiet room which was allocated daily and shared at hospital huddles. This was used as a wellbeing area, prayer room with resources available for example prayer books, mat. If this were needed staff would inform the appropriate person in the clinic and they would collect them for their appointment. Staff could add notes to the booking system for example if the person were afraid of needles.

Staff completed a recognised training in relation to learning disabilities and mental health awareness with an overall compliance rate of 100% at the time of the inspection. They also completed The Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training which there was a compliance rate of 93%. The hospital had a dementia champion on site.

Breastfeeding was permitted anywhere in the hospital, and people could ask staff for somewhere private to do this if needed. Extended slots of 90 minutes were offered to patients with communication requirements, cognitive impairment or those needing an interpreter as per policy.

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

Patients were provided with terms and conditions so they could make informed decisions about any surgery alongside a cooling off period of 14 days.

We observed 2 patient consultations and noted that consultants provided relevant information, discussed options as well as risks and benefits. They also discussed test results and if further investigations were needed. This ensured that patients were able to make informed decisions.

There was lots of information to support decision making on the website and patients were given plenty of time to ask any questions.

The hospital had admission criteria which they used to ensure patients were suitable for surgery. The hospital policy was to identify patients that were not suitable as early as possible in the patient pathway. Additionally, that pre-operative assessments should take place as early as possible in the patient's pathway so that all resources and obstacles could be identified early including any discharge arrangements.