Spire Wellesley 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 were at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people 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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.
 

This meant patient’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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 told us staff listened to them, involved them in decisions and provided clear, accessible information. Staff reviewed patient lists in advance to identify those who might need additional support or reasonable adjustments, helping to ensure personalised care from arrival. For example, staff shared how they had made adjustments for patients with dementia, allowing additional time and family to be with them during treatment.

Staff introduced themselves during appointments and encouraged patients to discuss their needs, preferences and concerns.

Oncology services ran a monthly bra and breast prothesis fitting service for those patients undergoing breast cancer treatment. The services Patient Led Assessment of the Care Environment (PLACE) 2025 showed 97% of patients and their families found the environment to be disability and dementia friendly.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.
 

The hospital treated patients that were NHS funded and patients who were privately insured or self-paying. The service was flexible and responsive, ensuring continuity of care and timely access to treatment. Patients did not have to wait long for appointments.

Patients told us their care was well organised and coordinated well from booking to discharge and referral processes.

Staff coordinated care effectively with other services and made onward referrals when required. They received training on learning disabilities and autism, enabling them to recognise and respond to the needs of people with protected characteristics.

Staff worked closely with multidisciplinary teams, ensuring specialist recommendations were incorporated into care records and treatment plans.

The service also collaborated effectively with system partners, including GPs and NHS trusts. Staff had clear handover processes which supported patients seamless transitions between services and ensured relevant clinical information was shared appropriately.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
 

Patients care was supported through the services Accessible Information Standard policy. Staff made sure patients, families and carers with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss had access to information about the service they could understand.

Patients told us they were provided with all the necessary information throughout their care. They had received emails and phone communication from staff prior to their treatments or procedures. Where patients required additional communication support, staff arranged interpreters or adapted how information was provided to support understanding and informed decision-making.

The hospital’s website offered comprehensive information about available services. Patients could change the website’s colours, enlarge fonts and read aloud to increase accessibility. The website included information on pricing, facilities, travel information and information for patients’ sections.

Patients received information leaflets or emails following their care. This included advice on aftercare and potential post procedure risks and how to contact the service.

Patient care records were stored securely and all staff were trained in the principles of data protection.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.
 

Patients were encouraged and supported to give feedback on care. All patients we spoke with were offered a feedback survey following their care and treatment. All 11 respondents to the oncology survey completed between July 2025 and June 2026 rated their overall care experience as very good.

Staff understood the complaints process and directed patients to the appropriate route when needed. No complaints had been logged in relation to endoscopy and oncology between 1 January 2026 and 30 June 2026. However, leaders told us when they did receive complaints the service took a structured approach and used feedback to drive improvement.

The service shared a ‘you said’ ‘we did’ notice board to share with patients what changes had been made because of their feedback. For example, department signage was improved following patient feedback. Leaders reviewed and shared patient experience feedback with teams to support learning and continuous improvement, and ensure services remained responsive to patients' needs and preferences.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
 

Patients could access timely appointments, with additional clinics added when required. A dedicated bookings team managed appointments, cancellations and amendments, and patients received clear information about fees, cancellations and discharge arrangements. Patients could access a personalised patient digital portal for information of appointments, letters and referrals.

The service provided day-case procedures only. The hospital had accessible parking, step-free access, wheelchair provision and equipment to support patients with additional mobility needs. The services premises, resources and equipment were accessible including accessible toilets and bathrooms.

Adult patients with learning disabilities had access to a ‘My Hospital passport’. Staff recorded information including the persons likes and dislikes as well as communication needs. Hearing loops were available in reception areas.

Some staff had received additional training to support patients with additional needs. For example, staff had become sensory champions to support patients living with sight and hearing loss. The hospital had also joined the Essex sensory action alliance to further strengthen their commitment to support all patients using the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.
 

Patients told us they had experienced good care and support throughout their treatment and discharge. Staff identified and planned for patients’ individual needs, including disabilities and additional support requirements. Staff also had equality, diversity and inclusion training. 
 

The service made reasonable adjustments to meet patients’ needs, including flexible appointment scheduling, reduced sensory stimulation for autistic people, quiet spaces, continuity of staff and access to professional interpreters. Staff demonstrated awareness of factors affecting patient experiences and outcomes, including physical and mental health, communication needs, neurodiversity and social circumstances.
 

Endoscopy outcomes were monitored within surgery. Please see surgery report for further details. 
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.
 

Staff ensured patients received the information needed to understand their treatment and plan future care, including onward referrals and the transfer of relevant clinical information. Patients told us staff explained treatment options clearly, involved them in decisions, and gave them time to ask questions and consider their choices.

Staff supported informed decision-making by providing consistent information and involving patients in discussions about treatment plans and any changes to their care.
 

Where appropriate, staff held sensitive discussions about future care and end-of-life planning, following a structured process. Consultants and specialist oncology nurses led these conversations, providing information, emotional support and shared decision-making. Staff also worked closely with community palliative care teams to support continuity of care for patients and their families.