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

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 planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

The service supported staff wellbeing.

The last assessment rated safe as 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 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 patient’s needs.

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. This commenced in the outpatient department when treatment options were discussed and agreed with the patient and the consultant. Then patients had a preoperative assessment review to ensure their suitability for any procedures.

Patients who used services were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it is centred around them and their needs. We reviewed 11 sets of patients medical and nursing notes and found these reflected the patients’ needs.

Staff monitored patients’ personal needs including, mobility, pain, and dietary requirements. The patient records we reviewed showed daily documentation from nursing and medical staff about test results, patients’ progress, discharge plans, and discussions with relatives. Consultants responsible for the patient's overall care would visit patients on the ward and communicate any care needs with the nursing staff.

Staff provided person-centred care which considered the individual needs of the person. The hospital was fully accessible to patients with limited mobility and wheelchair users. There were lifts to the first floor and wheelchairs available if required.

Any patients admitted with learning difficulties or dementia had different coloured wrist bands and were generally placed first on the theatre list to prevent longer waits. Staff told us they recently seen a patient who had dementia and arrangements were made for them to stay in the double room with their partner.

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.

As per Royal College guidelines private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or partially), they were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the services to be provided, including as to the amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible this was always provided in writing prior to the commencement of the services.

All patients were made aware of the arrangements the hospital had for emergency provision and intensive care. This was usually included in the preadmission information.

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.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. Patients were admitted to the hospital in a timely manner, most admissions were planned. Patients were appropriately admitted for procedures with all staff involved in the assessment.

Between 1 October 2024 and 30 September 2025, Spire Little Aston Hospital carried out 10,865 procedures and recorded 9,210 patient spells, with activity split between private (majority) and NHS pathways. Spire Little Aston Hospital operated predominantly through a planned and elective care model delivered via booked inpatient, day case and outpatient pathways.

Patients received care and treatment from services that were flexible and provided joined-up care. Care and treatment was co-ordinated and responsive and delivered in a way that meets their assessed needs and in line with national guidelines for the provision of surgical services.

The coordination and delivery of services involved multidisciplinary working where appropriate and took account of the needs and preferences of different people and communities, including those with protected characteristics and those at greater risk of experiencing poorer outcomes or inequalities in care.

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. For example, managers had met with other organisations to discuss specific needs in their area to support the reduction in waiting times for elective surgery.

The hospital had developed a significant elective orthopaedic profile and was designated as a Robotics Centre of Excellence, using a robotic system for hip and knee replacement surgery. By late 2025, consultants at the site had performed more than 1,000 robotic joint replacement procedures, indicating sustained surgical throughput and service maturity.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. Toilets were unisex and leaders told us how they had recognised the importance of ensuring sanitary bins were available for all patients.

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

Spire Little Aston Hospital provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they understood, and met their communication needs. Staff had access to communication aids to help patients become partners in their care and treatment.

A range of information was available to patients. Information available included access to “My Spire” where they could check appointments, date and time to be admitted and test results. My Spire also provided a wealth of information, both videos and written information about their operation, complications, and ongoing management such as physiotherapy.

Patients had information which met their individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for them, interpreting and translation for patients who do not speak English as a first language and for deaf patients who used British Sign Language. Information was also available in easy read for people who had a learning disability.

The service worked within the Accessible Information Standard.

Patients or their loved ones could contact the hospital for advice following their discharge and were given the telephone number of the inpatient ward which was open 24 hours a day

There were quick response codes on display throughout the hospital and patient areas 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 shaping care delivery via patient feedback. These included involving patients in a choice of admission date. Leaders told us how surveys directly informed service design. For example, in response to 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 (a complication of certain types of surgery). Managers had shared with a complainant timely action taken to proactively reduce the risk of cancellation on the day of surgery whilst continuing to ensure patient safety.

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. We saw a timely response to a patient who complained about the cancellation of her surgery on the day and that staff had shared actions undertaken because of their complaint. The complainant had responded positively to actions taken and thanked staff for their response.

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. Complaints were discussed at the daily staff huddles. The governance lead reviewed all complaints and would contact families for more information. They would offer a meeting or home visit if appropriate. Any stage 2 complaints that were unresolved would be escalated to the national team for review.

Complaints or concern were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in good time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way. There had been 14 formal complaints between 1 June 2025 and 31 May 2026 in relation to surgery. We reviewed 4 formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy. We saw complaint response included an apology and 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 14 formal complaints of these, 4 were upheld, 6 were not upheld and 4 were still not completed.

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. Where improvements were required as a result, patients had the opportunity to be involved in shaping the solutions and measuring the impact. For example, we saw how an additional 2-person verification had been added to confirm the accurate ordering and receipt of prosthesis.

Complaint themes and trends were discussed at the Patient Experience Group. The most common themes identified were delayed or cancelled surgery and post-operative complications.

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.

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards (NHS patients via the choose and book system). Where there were long waiting lists, these were monitored and reduced over time.

There were short waiting lists for patients, who were insured and self-pay. NHS patients waiting times were in accordance with national guidance. Surgery was planned in line with the patient’s wishes. Any urgent surgeries were expedited. Surgeons had dedicated theatre slots to meet the needs of the patients under their care.

Managers monitored waiting times and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets. The service kept a detailed spreadsheet of all NHS patients and their 18-week breach deadline. However, due to financial pressures in February and March 2026, NHS activity had been stopped. This affected 376 NHS patients; patients had their surgery rebooked based on clinical needs when the new contact commenced. The service was managing the waiting list and had developed systems to proactively release theatre time and enable the waiting list to be reduced. Patients waiting over 52 weeks had a harms proforma completed and review between senior clinicians and Medical Advisory Committee. Spire Little Aston Hospital performance was in line with, and in some areas stronger than, regional peers. The 18‑week referral to treatment time (RTT) performance remains within the upper range of the independent sector.

The hospital staff managed the bed occupancy and patient flow well. Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. The service had successfully reduced the patient length of stay by proactive management including physiotherapy with patients who had joint surgery and ensuring patients were got of out bed on the day of their surgery. Staff planned patients’ discharge carefully, particularly for those with additional needs.

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.

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 and delivery. 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.

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

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.

There was no specific quiet room available, but staff told us there was an identified room, that changed daily and was identified during the daily safety huddle.

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. 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.

Patients were supported to plan for important life changes and future care needs, enabling them to make informed decisions about their treatment and care. Family members and carers were involved in these discussions where patients wished.

Patients were given sufficient time to ask questions about their treatment options, and staff provided additional support to help them understand what these options involved. This enabled patients to make informed choices and plan their future care effectively. When seeking consent for invasive procedures, staff ensured patients received clear information about the potential risks of undergoing the treatment, as well as the possible consequences of choosing not to proceed.

Patients we spoke with felt the information they were given was clear and accurate and provided in a way they could understand. Patients had personalised care and treatment plans to suit their needs.

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.

Patients who had undergone surgery that altered their body appearance or functions permanently, they were provided with access to ongoing support and advice for managing their condition.

Discharge summaries were given to the patient to take home and for their GP and follow up appointments were made before discharge. Physiotherapy staff ensured patients were aware of ongoing physiotherapy appointments and exercises required following procedures.

Prior to admission, private patients would meet with the private patient coordinator to discuss costs, review what was covered under any insurance and offered finance options. This ensured patient were aware of all costs prior to admission.