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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients 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. 

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 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.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff were able to access support through several resources such as: “This is Me” leaflet for people with dementia, delirium or other communication difficulties, “My hospital passport” for adults with learning disabilities and resources on the intranet for large print or easy to read information.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters and translation services when needed.

Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences. The catering services adapted to the needs of the patients.

The service worked in partnership with patients to improve its provision. We saw posters displayed of “Please talk to us” inviting feedback using a QR code.

We reviewed five patient records and care plans to assess how staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff assessed wider social needs during pre-assessment to support planning for admission and treatment. Staff also completed a comprehensive pre-anaesthetic assessment questionnaire to identify and consider patients’ individual needs.

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 service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care..

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. For example, patients with limited mobility.

Patients were greeted in reception, brought to the ward and shown to their room. Patients were informed of what to expect and how long their stay would be.

We observed bedside handovers between nurses on shifts and patient involvement was encouraged to ensure all staff had the relevant information for each patient. We observed a staff morning handover where key information was shared to ensure continuity of care.

Prior to discharge, staff confirmed follow up appointments with patients. Staff provided written confirmation alongside a discharge letter and aftercare advice sheets such as wound care leaflets. Staff printed patient information leaflets in larger fonts when required.

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

Staff managed information securely in line with the organisation's information security policy, which covered all aspects of information governance.

Staff updated carers and families regularly on patient’s progress during operations.

The service provided a range of information to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health.

We observed patient information notice boards which highlighted subjects such as; how to protect yourself from blood clots, infection control and the accessible information standard. The accessible information standard highlights that information is provided that is easily read or understood for people that have a disability, impairment or sensory loss.

Staff provided information to patients regarding sedation and other medications that they had received. 

Staff kept medical records in a locked cupboard in the patient’s room. Access was restricted to staff involved in providing care and treatment, which helped maintain patient confidentiality.

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.

The hospital had a complaints policy which included how complaints were managed.

Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. People, their family, and carers felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

The surgery service had received 17 formal complaints during the period July 2025 to June 2026 relating to their experience.  All the complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days and 100% were responded to within 20 working days, in line with the hospital policy. 

Complaints or concerns were investigated thoroughly, and complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. We reviewed 3 formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. 

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.

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Managers monitored and reviewed waiting times from referral to treatment, and oversaw arrangements for patients admission, treatment and discharge.

The service provided treatment within agreed timeframes.

The hospital staff managed the bed occupancy and patient flow well.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum.

The service monitored surgery related cancellations over the last 12 months. During this period 97 cancellations were recorded, of which 96 resulted in “no” physical harm. The most common reason for cancellation was patients being deemed unfit for surgery during pre-operative assessments. This demonstrating that risks were identified before treatment proceeded.  

When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers rearranged these appointments as soon as possible.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to Post operatively. 

The service provided adequate medical cover day and night. This meant a doctor was able to attend the ward quickly in an emergency. Anaesthetists and consultants were contactable in line with policy during the patient’s pathway and would support staff with concerns regarding their surgery.

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.

There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about patient's experiences and outcomes.  

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and belonging.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpretation and translation services. Staff also had access to a hearing loop system on all reception desks for patients with hearing impairment.

The service was able to provide clinic rooms that was specifically adapted for patients with wheelchairs, this was a change made after receiving feedback from a patient. 

The services discharge arrangements optimised outcomes for all patients, including those with protected characteristics. Where necessary, staff involved carers and community services to encourage and support patients ongoing recovery. 

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported by planning for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and future care needs. Staff involved family members or carers in discussions where this aligned with the patient’s wishes.  

Staff discussed plans for patient discharges and support required for recovery. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice.  

The service used a multidisciplinary team approach during assessment meetings to discuss patients future care needs. This supported effective care planning and helped ensure patients ongoing clinical needs were identified and met.  

Staff provided patients with discharge summaries to take home and share with their GPs. They booked in follow up appointments before patients were discharged.