Spire Wellesley Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Patients told us staff reviewed their medical history, allergies and social history as part of the pre-assessment process. These assessments identified communication, health and the wellbeing needs of the patients, including risk assessments. 
 

The service had treatment acceptance criteria for both endoscopy and oncology patients. Any patient deemed ‘high risk’ were referred to GPs and NHS services for review. Treatment and procedure options were discussed with patients and their families where necessary. 
 

Staff ensured patients had clear treatment and procedure plans. This included sedation options and aftercare advice such as driving post procedure. Oncology patients told us they were included in discussions about their care. 

Patients were supported with pain management and treatment side effects. The services oncology patient survey results for June 2025 to July 2026 showed 100% of patients agreed that nursing staff checked on them regularly during treatment. 
 

On the day of scheduled endoscopy’s staff carried out a further pre-procedure check to ensure patients could continue with their procedure safely. Staff cancelled and rescheduled procedures if they identified any risk factors; for example, if a patient forgot to fast as required.
 

Staff shared key information to keep patients safe when handing over their care to others. Handovers included all necessary key information to keep patients safe.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. 
 

The service used National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) as a standardised system to detect early signs of clinical deterioration in adult patients, we reviewed patients records which showed this was being used during our assessment. The World Health Organisation (WHO) safety check list was used to minimise the risk of harm. 
 

The service carried out audits to benchmark themselves and analysed data to drive service improvements and patient care. Staff followed up to date policies and procedures in line with national guidance to plan and deliver good care. 
 

The provider reported into the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN), which is an independent, government-mandated organisation publishing performance and fees information about private consultants and hospitals.
 

The endoscopy unit was working towards its Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) accreditation. Leaders shared the challenge over staffing and service demand had influenced them achieving this accreditation. 
 

Patient’s received systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT), which included drug treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies, through structured, evidence-based pathways. Staff used recognised SACT protocols and United Kingdom Oncology Nursing Society (UKONS) triage tools to assess, monitor and respond to symptoms and deterioration.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.
 

Staff included patients and relatives in discussions and decisions about their care. 
 

At the beginning of each shift, staff met to discuss the days activities, review patient lists and share learning. We attended the hospital’s daily huddle which included representatives from across all departments. Teams shared safeguarding concerns, complaints and reviewed current operational risks. Leaders also shared praise for staff who had supported colleagues covering shifts during annual leave and sickness. Communication between teams was effective and allowed good oversight of the service provision. 
 

Staff told us teams worked well together across departments to respond to patient’s needs. We heard examples of effective teamworking. Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals worked together as a team to provide good care. 
 

Staff were supported by the service’s resident medical officer (RMO) if they needed immediate clinical advice or support. This provision was available 24 hours a day. RMOs were supplied to the hospital as part of the Spires national contract system.  Leaders told us the bank staff used were experienced at the hospital and well supported within their role. 
 

Teams had processes in place for escalation. Staff arranged transfer for patients requiring emergency. This was arranged through the local NHS ambulance services to the nearest emergency department. Staff had clear processes to follow when handing over patients, including sharing patient records and observations.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
 

Patients felt supported by staff during their care and treatment. They told us staff had signposted them to internal and external resources such as websites and local charities for additional support during treatment.

The service provided patient leaflets with post treatment and procedure advice. We observed health promotion posters and literature within the oncology services, supporting patients to live healthily during their treatment.

Staff took a holistic approach to care and treatment of all patients. Ensuring all aspects of general health was supported with advice and signposting patients for support. 

 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.
 

Staff clinically monitored patients throughout their care and treatment. For example, we observed staff taking regular observations on oncology patients during treatment.

Patients remained in the department following their treatment or procedure until staff deemed them fit for discharge. Staff had clear guidance and protocols to follow if a patient should deteriorate during or post treatment. The service had direct access to the local NHS oncology service with clear processes for referral.

The services monitored patient endoscopy outcomes through audits and service benchmarking. Leaders had updated endoscopy equipment to improve care experience and outcomes.

Staff routinely monitored oncology patient care outcomes through team clinicals reviews and diagnostic and imaging.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.
 

Patients we spoke with told us staff had discussed and explained all treatments and procedures which enabled them to give informed consent. Staff ensured patients had all the information they needed to make their own decisions.
Staff had access to a remote interpreter service to support all patients to give informed consent, including hospital staff who were trained in British Sign Language. 
 

Staff received training specific to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLs). However, not all medical care staff were complaint with this training. During our assessment staff gave examples of actions they had taken when a patient lacked capacity to consent.