Spire Norwich Hospital

Updated 24 July 2026

We assessed Spire Norwich Hospital from 4 to 24 March 2026. This was an aged rating assessment as the service had not been assessed since 2016. The assessment was unannounced and 33 quality statements, across the five key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well led were assessed to determine an overall rating.

Spire Norwich Hospital registered is registered with CQC to deliver 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 assessment service groups: Surgery, diagnostic 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 22 December 2025

Date of assessment: 4th March 2026. This was an aged rating assessment as the service had not been assessed since 2016. The assessment was unannounced.

Diagnostic Imaging service consisted of 1 x-ray machine, 1 computed tomography (CT) Scanner, 1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine and 2 ultrasound clinic rooms.

In 2016 we assessed Spire Norwich Hospital using the assessment methodology of the time where the outpatient department and diagnostic imaging were assessed together. Under our current assessment framework, the two departments were assessed independently.

Patient areas were safe, visibly clean, well equipped and fit for purpose. The service had good staffing levels, but they relied on bank/agency staff to maintain some services such as MRI at the time of the assessment. Staff received training to support safe care and treatment. Staff were knowledgeable about the service and how to report incidents, safeguarding issues and radiation specific concerns. Staff and teams worked well together and treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

There were some processes that could be improved in the management of risk and incidents such as the location of an ultrasound room within the MRI area.

The hospital’s main service is surgery, where outpatient arrangements mirror those for surgery; findings will be reported under the surgery report.

Updated 22 December 2025

We assessed Spire Norwich Hospital from 4 to 24 March 2026. This was an aged rating assessment as the service had not been assessed since 2016. The assessment was unannounced and 33 quality statements, across the five key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well led were assessed to determine an overall rating.

The outpatient department consists of 23 consulting rooms across 3 sites, Hill House, the main hospital building, and the Ella May Barnes Clinic, which also houses the physiotherapy department and gym. This report relates to all three sites unless stated otherwise.

The service provides outpatients services for children and young people aged 0-18 and offers elective surgery for 16–18-year-olds.

Improvements have been seen since our last assessment in children’s safeguarding training, and the service now has 2 children and young people safeguarding leads.

Improvements have also been seen in the recording and storing of consultant notes.

In 2016 we assessed Spire Norwich Hospital using the assessment methodology of the time where the outpatient department and diagnostic imaging were assessed together. Under our current assessment framework, the two departments were assessed independently.

The service had a good learning culture. Incidents and complaints were investigated; learning was identified and shared. Staff were trained to recognise abuse and neglect and understood their responsibilities to safeguard people.

People had their needs assessed, with appropriate care and treatment delivered. Staff worked well within the department to promote good care and smooth transitions across services with appropriate sharing of information. People were supported to make informed decisions; treatment and care was monitored to improve outcomes. Consent to care and treatment was gained, and staff could demonstrate where best interest decisions would be made.

People were treated with kindness, dignity, and respect. People were given independence, choice, and control to make informed decisions around their own treatment and care; they were treated as individuals. The service had processes in place to support the wellbeing of staff.

Information was provided in a way that people understood taking into consideration additional communication needs and requirements. People using the service received equal and fair treatment with good outcomes.

Support processes were in place to encourage staff to speak up. Staff were treated equally and felt safe at work. The service had a clear vision and a strategy in place which was shared with staff. Leaders promoted an open and inclusive culture that maintained oversight of the service through regular checks and audits.

The hospital’s main service is surgery, where outpatient arrangements mirror those for surgery; findings will be reported under the surgery report.

Updated 22 December 2025

This assessment was undertaken because the hospital was last inspected in June 2022. The on-site assessment was unannounced and took place on 4th March 2026. We assessed 33 quality statements across the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led to determine the rating. During the assessment, we spoke with staff, leaders and service users. We reviewed care records, policies, and other documentation relevant to the service.

Surgical services provided at this location included eye surgery, gynaecology, general surgery, hip and knee surgery and urology. There were four theatres including a Vanguard theatre, 3 theatres were laminar flow, a 4-bay recovery area, 60 inpatient and day care beds and enhanced recovery unit (2 beds) where surgical patients were cared for.

We have rated the service as good

The surgery service was found to provide compassionate and person-centred care. Safe staffing levels was strong with a flexible and responsive workforce. Effective teamwork was evident across clinical areas. Staff were observed to work collaboratively to support continuity of care.

Medicines optimisation was safe and infection prevention and control practice was generally effective. There was a good culture of incident reporting and learning from incidents.

However, shortcomings were noted in relation to staff wellbeing and awareness of the future strategic direction of the services by staff.

If we have requested an action plan, this will be requested upon publication of the final report.

Updated 30 August 2016

Overall the medical oncology service at Spire Norwich Hospital was rated as good. Safe was rated as requires improvement with effective, caring, responsive and well led being rated as good.

There were a number of out-of-date sealed sterile packs found during our inspection. Records were not always completed and there were no controls or checks on the number of booklets for chemotherapy administration the patient could have in their records. The electronic signatures on prescriptions were not always legible. Staff knowledge of safeguarding training was limited. Consultant oncologists did not work on site but were contactable by phone.

However staff were up to date with mandatory training, and administration pathways and risk assessments for chemotherapy patients were in place. Evidence-based treatment protocols were jointly developed by the service and the local NHS trust. Patients received appropriate pain relief and their pain was routinely monitored. Staff were supported to complete service specific training, and develop their roles and careers within the organisation.

Patients were well cared for. Patient relatives stated that the staff were caring, answered their concerns very quickly and did all they could to preserve the patient’s dignity. Counselling and support services were offered to the patient, as well as relatives. This service worked closely with the Macmillan team to ensure patient needs were met.

Oncology services were responsive. Patients received their first appointment within seven weeks of a referral being made, and more than half of these were seen within three weeks of the referral date. No specific complaints had been received about the oncology service within the last 12 months, and patients were informed about the complaints and compliments process.

Oncology services were well led locally. There was a clear vision and strategy for staff. Staff were well engaged, felt supported and respected the leadership at the hospital. There was an open friendly but professional culture at the hospital and in the oncology service.

The oncology service although small had achieved MacMillan Cancer support accreditation in 2014 for being a good environment to be treated for cancer. However there was limited evidence of monitoring the outcomes for chemotherapy patients, and there was limited oversight of oncology as a service by the medical staff through MAC and through Oncology team meetings. The risk register controls for monitoring risks were not as detailed as they could have been to ensure robust oversight of current risks.

Updated 30 August 2016

Outpatient and diagnostic services at Spire Norwich were rated as good overall. Safe was rated as requires improvement, caring, responsive and well led were rated as good. Effective was inspected but not rated.

Children were seen for appointments within the outpatient department by staff that had been trained to safeguarding children and young people level one and two combined, and not level three as is required by national guidance.

The outpatient manager was the childrens safeguarding lead and was trained to level 3 however there was a risk that, at times, there may be no staff on site with the appropriate level 3 training.

Spire Norwich Hospital had a resource in place to access RCN advice or support by telephone for any paediatric issues, however there was no mechanism to check that these staff had level 3 safeguarding training.

The hospital did not retain copies of all of the consultant’s notes for each outpatient appointment. We were also concerned that no patient risk assessments were recorded or present within the patient notes despite having been told these assessments were carried out.

There was an open reporting culture within the department and staff were encouraged to learn.

Robust systems were in place for ensuring consultant’s practising privileges were monitored and medical review was available 24 hours a day seven days a week via clinics, the on-call system and via the responsible medical officer (RMO).

Patient feedback was extremely positive; patients spoke very highly of the care they received from staff. Chaperone services were available at the patient’s request. There was a specialist children’s nurse available for children requiring any procedures to be undertaken.

There were no outpatient waiting lists for clinics and general practitioner (GP) feedback received about Spire Norwich was positive.

Governance systems were well established and good processes were in place for incident management, risk management and learning from complaints.