Spire Norwich 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 patients 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 people’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 patient’s needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff were able to access support through several resources such as: “This is Me” leaflet for people with dementia, delirium or other communication difficulties, “My hospital passport” for adults with learning disabilities and resources on the intranet for large print or easy to read information.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters and translation services 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.

The service worked in partnership with patients to improve its provision. We saw posters displayed of “Please talk to us” inviting feedback using a QR code.

Results from part of 2025 patient satisfaction survey showed good levels of agreement with 93% of respondents stated that they “felt truly valued as an individual” either as strongly agreed or agreed with the statement.

We reviewed 5 patient records and care plans to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. For example, wider social needs were assessed at pre-assessment in preparation for admission for treatment and there was a comprehensive questionnaire for pre-assessment of patients for anaesthesia to consider individual needs.

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.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. For example, patients with mobility problems.

Patients were met in reception, brought to the ward and shown to their room. Patients were informed of what to expect and how long their stay would be.

We observed bedside handovers between nurse shifts and patient involvement was encouraged to ensure all staff had the relevant information for each patient. We observed a morning handover where key information was shared to ensure continuity of care.

The hospital worked closely with the local NHS hospital trust and Integrated Care Board.

Prior to discharge, follow up appointments were confirmed. Confirmation was provided alongside a discharge letter and after care advice sheets such as wound care leaflets. Patient leaflets could be printed in larger fonts if required.

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

The hospital has an information security policy that covered all aspects of information within the organisation.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Patient experience ratings for part of 2025 reported that 96% of information was clear and easy to understand and 92% reported that the information contained everything that was needed.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health.

We observed patient information notice boards which highlighted subjects such as; how to protect yourself from blood clots, infection control and the accessible information standard. The accessible information standard highlights that information is provided that is easily read or understood for people that have a disability, impairment or sensory loss.

Information was provided to patients such as about sedation that they had received.

Medical records were kept in a locked cupboard in the patient’s room, the rationale for this was that the medical records should only be made involving the patient themselves.

In a CQC staff survey 75% of surgery staff felt that access to clinical records was in a timely manner although we had been informed on inspection that this was not always the case.

The service generally made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The hospital had a complaints policy which included how complaints were managed.

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 felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

Surgery had received 15 formal complaints during the period March 2025 to February 2026 relating to treatment. All the complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days and 47% were responded to within 20 working days in line with the hospital policy.

Complaints or concerns were investigated thoroughly, and complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. We reviewed 3 formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to.

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.

For example, a patient had been wrongly informed of pre-operative fasting arrangement. Because of the complaint all pre-operative fasting advice was now only provided which was confirmed within the admission letter.

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 monitored. We were informed that a recent development to improve access and maintain waiting times was the introduction of a weekend nursing pre-assessment appointment.

Managers monitored waiting times, where this was necessary and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes.

The hospital staff managed the bed occupancy and patient flow well.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum.

The service monitored the surgery related cancellations over the period 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2026. Over this period 111 incidents were reported with an outcome of “no” physical harm. Several reasons for the cancellations were given. For example, the most common reason was patient unwell on admission- not attributable to pre-operative assessment and then equipment not available (17 incidents) of which 6 were deemed avoidable. We were not informed if there had been any learning because of the equipment being unavailable.

When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Staff planned patients’ discharge carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs. Staff liaised with General Practitioners (GP’s) and community services when patients had complex needs. There was evidence that a range of community care providers were used to support discharge of patients.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency. Anaesthetists and consultants were contactable in line with policy during the patient’s pathway and would support staff with concerns regarding their surgery.

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 patient's experiences and outcomes. We saw information which showed that 97% patients rated their experience as good or very good (for part of 2025).

We were informed that equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) were a priority for the hospital service. This was underpinned by an equality strategy for 2026 and a comprehensive EDI plan.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and belonging.

At the time of the inspection 88% of ward staff, 81% of theatre staff and 88% of pre-assessment staff had been trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and belonging.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpretation and translation services. There was access to a hearing loop system on all reception desks for patients with hearing impairment.

The service told us that they were unable to provide us with evidence that they monitored people most likely to experience inequality or outcomes such as those with protected characteristics or ethnicity. Therefore, we were not assured that they collected and reviewed this data to address potential shortfalls in care.

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.

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

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer if they wished.

Staff discussed plans for when patients go home and support recovery from the patient's operation. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice. For example, we observed a patient whose post-operative blood results were not available from a third-party service and delayed their discharge. The consultant was contacted and the patient could be discharged with safety measures put in place and instructions given to support the patient on discharge.

We also observed the multidisciplinary team approach to discuss patients’ future needs at an admission assessment meeting. For example, a patient was discussed who had been declined surgery and sent for pre-operative stabilisation by their GP. The patient was then reviewed again following this and met the admission criteria. This demonstrates multi-disciplinary team working to ensure a patient’s future clinical needs were met.

Discharge summaries were given to the patient to take home and for their GP and follow up appointments were made before discharge.