Spire Wellesley Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement that was based on meeting the needs of people who used services and wider communities. We checked that leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, integrated, person-centred and sustainable, and to reduce inequalities.
 

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. 
 

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
 

The hospitals strategy focused on key areas such as, investing in the workforce, performance and financial sustainability. Staff at all levels were involved in developing the organisation’s values and behaviours, which were embedded through staff induction and yearly appraisals.

The endoscopy service demonstrated a positive, inclusive and patient-centred culture. Staff understood and lived by the provider’s values. They worked collaboratively across professional groups and described strong teamwork, mutual respect and a shared commitment to safe, high-quality care. Staff felt able to speak openly with colleagues and leaders without fear of repercussions.

Leaders promoted equality, diversity and inclusion through recruitment practices, reasonable adjustments, and support for individual staff needs. The provider also had a wellbeing strategy and offered a range of staff benefits and support services. Staff feedback reflected high levels of support, inclusion and alignment with organisational values.

Staff survey results for 2025 showed positive teamworking, strong peer relationships and effective management support. Further detail on the service’s culture and shared direction is provided in the surgery inspection report.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.
 

Staff described leaders at all levels as visible, approachable, inclusive and compassionate. The executive team maintained a strong presence across the organisation, and staff felt able to raise concerns openly in a supportive culture. 
 

Oncology leaders were experienced, knowledgeable and well regarded by staff. They demonstrated inclusive leadership and maintained oversight of governance, safety, staffing, training and performance. Staff consistently reported feeling listened to, supported and encouraged to ask questions.
 

The provider had good arrangements for leadership continuity, including a formal succession plan, designated deputies for key roles and development opportunities for future leaders. Consultant performance was monitored through established governance processes, with clear mechanisms to address concerns where necessary.
 

Staff described managers as understanding the clinical, operational and emotional demands of their roles and providing flexibility and support when needed. Staff survey results reflected high levels of engagement, management support, positive working relationships and alignment with organisational values.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
 

The provider had 1 Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU) Guardian and 3 FTSU ambassadors, including a consultant ambassador. Staff understood the FTSU process and the role of the guardians, although most said they felt comfortable raising issues directly with their managers.
 

Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and were given clear guidance to follow if it related to an immediate patient safety risk. FTSU ambassadors held regular ‘drop in’ sessions for staff to attend and produced FTSU newsletters.
 

Leaders promoted an open and positive speaking-up culture, viewing feedback as an opportunity for learning and improvement. Staff described leaders as approachable and felt able to raise concerns, discuss workload pressures and share ideas without fear of negative consequences. Managers responded to concerns promptly and provided feedback on actions taken.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.
 

Staff said they had not witnessed discriminatory, disrespectful or abusive behaviour and felt confident concerns would be addressed appropriately if raised. They felt safe to speak up, provide feedback and contribute ideas for service improvement. Staff described leaders as approachable, responsive and supportive.

The provider actively promoted equality, diversity and inclusion and monitored workforce diversity through regular reporting. The workforce reflected a wide range of genders, ethnicities and backgrounds.

Flexible working arrangements were available, and leaders considered requests based on individual circumstances. The provider also offered reasonable adjustments, occupational health support and confidential counselling services to help staff remain healthy and effective at work.

The provider’s equality, diversity and inclusion strategy detailed support for all staff. They had access to annual health checks, nutritional consultations, health and wellbeing discounts.  Staff champions for LGBTQI+, menopause and mental health ran regular awareness campaigns and drop-in sessions.

Staff described a positive, inclusive culture and reported being treated fairly, respectfully and without discrimination. They felt confident reporting concerns and said leaders were supportive and responsive to individual needs, demonstrating the provider's commitment to equality, diversity and staff wellbeing. Further detail is available in the surgery inspection report for this location.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.
 

The provider had clear governance, management and accountability arrangements, with well-defined reporting lines and responsibilities. Staff understood their roles, and local governance structures fed into organisation-wide governance and executive oversight.

Governance meetings were held at local and senior levels, covering key areas such as quality, safety, complaints, audits, patient feedback and performance. Risks were identified, escalated and reviewed through established processes, supported by a comprehensive risk register and business continuity framework. Staffing in the endoscopy unit was logged as one of the hospitals top 5 risks.

Staff understood how to raise concerns and escalate risks.

The service maintained oversight of quality and safety through regular audits, assurance activities and committee reviews. Policies, procedures and equipment management processes were regularly reviewed and kept up to date. Risks to patient safety were monitored at multiple levels, informed by national guidance, safety alerts and incident reporting systems.

The service held appropriate insurance arrangements and monitored consultants' credentials and indemnity cover. Audit findings, risk reviews and governance discussions supported continuous improvement and effective oversight of service quality. Further detail is provided in the surgery inspection report for this location.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The oncology service worked closely with Macmillan Cancer Support, local NHS trusts, GPs and the local hospice to support coordinated care, service improvement and access to additional support. Staff provided holistic assessment for patients receiving oncology care, alongside cancer support groups and reflexology services in partnership with charities.

Patients could access practical and wellbeing support, including transport assistance, a cancer activity programme and information on local support services. Strong partnership working helped promote positive outcomes and continuity of care.

The provider maintained effective links with universities, supported staff development, delivered training to local healthcare professionals and shared learning with NHS partners. It also worked closely with suppliers to support staff training and safe equipment use.

Further detail is provided in the surgery inspection report for this location.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.
 

Patients and staff feedback was actively used to drive change, including improvements to patient rooms, communication methods and feedback processes, which increased patient engagement.
 

The service was working towards Joint Advisory Group (JAG) accreditation to further enhance the quality and safety of endoscopy services. In 2025 the hospital had received recognition from external partners for its good work in Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention. The provider’s housekeeping services had been awarded a platinum ward in October 2025 for high performance.
 

Staff described a culture where ideas and feedback were welcomed, with teams working collaboratively to improve patient experience and adapt services to individual needs.
 

Further detail is provided in the surgery inspection report for this location.