- Independent hospital
Spire London East Hospital
Assessment report published 22 July 2026
Ratings - Surgery
Our view of the service
We assessed the service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short, announced assessment of surgery services on 21 and 22 April 2026 because of the extended time since the last inspection. This was a standalone assessment of surgery only. It was not combined with the ratings for other assessment service groups.
At the previous inspection, carried out between 5 and 7 November 2019, 3 assessment service groups were inspected at the same time. Therefore, this report should be read alongside our previous reports for the full picture of all services at Spire London East Hospital.
At this assessment, we did not identify any breaches of regulations.
During this inspection, we engaged with a range of staff working across the surgical service. This included nurses, operating department practitioners (ODPs), anaesthetists, the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) chair, physiotherapists, catering staff, administrative staff, safeguarding leads, Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU) leads, infection prevention and control (IPC) leads, waste management lead, mental health first aiders, a student ODP, managers, and senior management leaders. We aimed to speak with surgeons, but they were not available during the assessment. We also received feedback from 10 patients and relatives who used the service.
People's experience of this service
People’s overall experiences of the service were mostly positive, with most patients describing good care, clear communication and supportive staff. Feedback gathered during the inspection from interviews with patients showed that care largely met expectations and patients felt well supported throughout their surgical pathway. Most patients consistently described staff as kind, respectful and responsive. For example, 1 patient said the service had “met the expectations of a private hospital,” while another described the care as “excellent” and said they “prayed every time to come back to this hospital.”
Patients reported that staff communicated effectively and helped them understand their care and treatment. Most patients told us they were given clear explanations about surgery, risks and recovery, and had enough time to ask questions and be involved in decisions. Patients were also provided with information before and after treatment and reported knowing who to contact if they had concerns after discharge. This reflected a consistent approach to supporting patients to be informed and involved in their care.
Patients also told us they felt listened to and supported, and that their privacy and confidentiality were maintained throughout their care. Observations during the inspection also supported this, with staff interacting with patients in a respectful and caring manner.
However, experiences were not consistent for all patients. Some patients raised concerns about delays in care, responsiveness, and reassurance following discharge. One patient reported feeling anxious about where to seek help if complications occurred after discharge. This was an individual example and did not evidence a wider pattern, but it highlighted a limited assurance gap about whether post-discharge guidance was consistently clear and reassuring for patients.
While many patients said they were happy with their care, our assessment found that aspects of responsiveness and consistency did not always meet expected standards