Spire Parkway 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 and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities 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 inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained the same. This meant patients were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 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 who used services were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it was centred around them and their needs. Care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs We reviewed 7 sets of patients medical and nursing notes and found these reflected the patients’ needs.

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. Within the main hospital there were lifts to the first floor and wheelchairs available if required. At the cancer centre there was disabled access through the front door and all patient areas were on the ground floor of the building and easily accessible.

Patients’ communication needs were assessed and met to maximise the effectiveness of their care and treatment. Translation services were available for people whose first language was not English. Staff knew how to access this service and told us that the service could be accessed by phone or on a messaging application chat function.

Staff monitored patients’ personal needs including, mobility, pain and dietary requirements. The patient records we reviewed showed clear documentation from clinic and treatment sessions. This included test results, treatment administration, side effects and other treatment related issues, discharge and ongoing support plans and discussions. Consultants responsible for the patient’s overall care and cancer nurse specialists also clearly recorded discussions, outcomes and ongoing support.

Cancer centre staff signposted patients to services relevant to their needs. This included wig specialists, psychology support, community services and specialist palliative care support.

The service had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people 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 attending for endoscopy had results shared with their GP with consent, therefore, ensuring primary care involvement in ongoing treatment and care. Patient’s attending the cancer centre for treatment generally did so on an ongoing basis where continuity of care was prioritised. Treatment and care was coordinated by the relevant consultant and cancer nurse specialist, with clear involvement of the chemotherapy nurses and other relevant staff.

There were ongoing discussions at MDT meetings where other specialists were involved in discussions and decision making to ensure that treatment decisions were appropriate. This ensured that treatment was in line with best practice and enabled continuity on an ongoing basis.

There was a senior manager on call every day and out of hours. There was a duty manager on site between 9am to 4pm every day. Consultants were available 24 hours a day by telephone in the event of concerns or complications.

Staff understood patients’ personal, cultural and religious needs. Care was provided in line with national guidelines for the provision of surgical services. Multidisciplinary teams worked together to ensure treatment was coordinated and joined up.

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

Staff had access to an online platform which could produce most patient information leaflets. Patients were given information at outpatients, in treatment clinics and on an ongoing basis.

Information leaflets were available in hard copies and online which included weight management, smoking cessation, mobility and avoiding falls. In addition, specialist cancer information leaflets and other aspects of cancer care information were available to patients. This included services in the community that patients could access, as well as available treatments such as acupuncture and physiotherapy.

There was information displayed on the walls in patient areas which included, how to make a complaint, translation services, chaperones and how to raise concerns.

Translation services were available for people whose first language was not English. Staff knew how to access this service and told us that the service could be accessed by phone or on teams chat lines.

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

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues.

There was a corporate complaints policy and staff could access this online. Complaints were discussed at the daily staff huddles. The governance lead reviewed all complaints and would contact patients or family members 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. Spire group was part of the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) they provide an independent 3 stage review process for complaints regarding private healthcare providers who subscribe to their service.

Between April 2025 to March 2026 there were 5 complaints logged in relation to medical care patients. There were zero complaints relating to endoscopy. Oncology complaints related to cancelled hot food service, appointment communication outside of normal working hours and cold capping provision during chemotherapy. These were raised directly with relevant staff and shared with all staff at team meetings. We saw that complaints had been fully investigated, and we saw that apologies were given. We also saw specific action taken included the purchase of new cold capping equipment, improvement to hot food provision and changes to communication processes outside of normal working hours.

The hospital held a bi-annual patient forum to involve and engage patients in service development and give further opportunities for sharing patient experiences. A randomised sample of patients both NHS and privately funded were invited to attend.

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

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely. It was delivered in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements. The hospital was open 24 hours a day. The cancer centre was open Monday to Friday 8am to6pm, with some evening clinics available. The centre provided 1,500 treatments a year, with approximately 50 clinic appointments a week. Endoscopy was open on a Monday, Tuesday and Friday.

The hospital provided cancer investigation, treatment and care to patients who self-funded and those with private medical insurance. Patients were referred to the centre through their GP surgery or through their hospital consultant. The hospital worked with the local integrated care boards (ICB) and the local acute NHS trust to plan services to meet the needs of the local population. The services provided ensured flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

There were no waiting lists for patients referred to the cancer centre, who were insured or self-paying. Staff gave examples of where patients attended the clinic on the same day, for example, where blood results indicated treatment was required. New patients generally attended clinic following an agreed treatment plan and after an MDT meeting to discuss treatment options.

Patients attending endoscopy had a pre-assessment review. It was the responsibility of the consultant undertaking the endoscopy procedure to assess the patient as appropriate. Referrals included information on past medical history, other conditions, infection risks and the patient’s ability to consent. A telephone assessment was carried out by the consultant undertaking the procedure, to assess the patient's suitability. This assessment included whether the patient was ambulant, if they were able to tolerate the bowel preparation required, and that they had a responsible adult able to stay with them in the 24 hours post procedure. Other considerations included if the patient was on anticoagulation or had implantable cardiac devices where their functionality may be affected by the equipment used in endoscopy. Some patients were admitted the day prior to their endoscopy procedure, for example, if they were unable to manage the bowel preparation independently.

The hospital had wheelchairs and lifts available to access all areas of the hospital. Staff were available at the entrance of the hospital to support and direct people to the correct areas. Wards were clearly sign posted and had swipe card access.

Patients with learning disabilities and dementia could have carers or family members with them during their time at the hospital.

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.

The service had processes and policies in place which ensured patients were treated in line with requirements under the NHS constitution and legal and human rights. Staff told us reasonable adjustments were made when required. The processes in place ensured that patients were not discriminated against and ensured that care and treatment was equitable for all.

All staff were committed to ensuring equitable access, outcomes, and experiences for all patients, including those with learning disabilities (LD), autism, dementia, and mental health needs. This commitment was embedded in the mission statement of the hospital to provide care that was unique and individual. This was supported in several ways including, hospital patient passports used to capture essential information about a patient’s needs, reasonable adjustments such as extended appointment times and quiet areas. There was a flag on the electronic system to ensure all staff were aware of any reasonable adjustments necessary.

We saw that 100% of oncology and endoscopy staff had completed Oliver MacGowan training to support people who were vulnerable. 78 % of staff had received appropriate training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

People were 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.

They 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.

Discharge planning and ongoing treatment appointments were discussed on an ongoing basis as part of patients’ treatment and care. There were a range of referral pathways staff could follow to ensure patient’s changing needs were met. This included referrals to specialist palliative care teams for patients choosing to stop treatment. In addition, there was an end of life care champion within the clinical nurse specialist team who provided advice and guidance to staff about end of life care.

Prior to treatment, 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. They were informed of any additional costs as part of their ongoing treatment and care.