St Anthony's Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We saw that outpatient staff were polite, friendly and helpful with patients, from their initial arrival to the end of their outpatient appointment. Patients told us that staff introduced themselves, explained the next steps and were happy to answer any questions they had. Signage advised patients to inform staff if there were delays to appointments. Staff told us they apologised for delays and would provide updates about when patients were likely to be seen.

Staff discussed treatment options with patients and their families. Staff members said they took care to consider patients’ individual needs and did not distinguish levels of care, whether patients were privately funded via insurance, self-pay, or NHS funded. One staff member told us they treated their patients like they would family members. Patients and their relatives said staff were attentive and kind, delivering a caring and compassionate service.

The OPD reception area was open plan, with the potential risk of private conversations being overheard. However, we observed signage asking patients queuing for reception to stand away from the reception area. Treatment, including conversations of a private nature, was conducted in private consultation rooms to help mitigate risks to confidentiality.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service had systems and policies to support patients with additional needs. A multi-faith room was available for patients and visitors. Staff considered patients' dietary requirements and allergies during pre-operative assessments and communicated these to catering services. Staff had access to language support services to support communication and informed decision‑making. Staff we spoke with were unclear about how to access this service, but when we mentioned this issue to leaders, signage was added to clinic rooms to help keep both staff and patients informed.

Pre-Operative Assessment (POA) questionnaires and triage system enabled patients to tell staff about their additional needs; this information was accessible to clinicians and supported personalised care planning. Patients with mobility needs could request support in advance or receive assistance on arrival, and staff could be allocated to support patients with additional needs throughout their outpatient journey. There was a dedicated child‑friendly waiting area, where patients/ carers could supervise their children away from adult patients.

Patients told us their care was tailored to their needs, and staff worked with other agencies to optimise care. Policies set out clear responsibilities for recording patients’ needs, with guidance available via the Spire-wide ‘Accessible info Standard’.

The service had systems and policies to support patients with additional needs. A multi-faith room was available for patients and visitors. Staff considered patients' dietary requirements and allergies during pre-operative assessments and communicated these to catering services.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff provided treatment options and encouraged patients to make decisions that best suited their needs and lifestyle. Appointment scheduling was flexible and designed to accommodate patients' preferences. Extended appointments were available for patients with additional or complex needs. Patients said they felt they were in control of their care and treatment. Patients told us they were offered choice around appointment times and dates, information around the treatment options and enabled to be part of their treatment planning. They said they were given the right information and support to make decisions about their ongoing treatment. We were told that family members and friends were welcome to join consultations and encouraged to provide support for patients through treatment. We observed a consultation where a family member was involved in verifying patient information to help ensure the patient’s needs were accurately recorded.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff told us they were always considerate of patients' preferences and would ask permission before touching them or conducting investigations. In line with the hospital’s chaperone policy, they would also ask people if they required a chaperone or any other accommodation to make them feel more comfortable. This included children and young people who would be provided with formal chaperones rather than OPD services relying on informal support from patients and carers. We saw evidence that an OPD consultant had changed their practice around engaging patients with examinations following a complaint review.

Staff would try to resolve complaints and concerns as soon as they were raised by patients, as they believed this was the most effective way to resolve issues. The hospital was over 97% compliant with its complaint performance targets.

Self-service access to hot and cold drinks was available to outpatients and their families whilst waiting for appointments within the OPD reception area. OPD treatment and clinic rooms had in-room emergency intercom systems, and the public access toilets had pull cords that allowed patients and staff to summon urgent help should it be required.

Patients told us OPD staff treated them well, showing kindness and providing good care.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt valued and supported by local leaders and the wider organisation. They described a positive culture within the hospital and referred to a "family feel", telling us it was a good place to work. Staff reported that leaders were approachable and supportive.

Staff received the training and support required for their roles. Systems were in place to ensure staff received regular appraisals, and appraisal compliance within OPD was generally in the last 12 months, particularly amongst non-clinical staff. Leaders told us appraisal performance had been affected by the absence of a substantive Head of OPD and staff sickness. A newly appointed Head of Department had commenced employment shortly before our assessment.

Many staff had worked at the hospital for several years, demonstrating workforce stability. Some staff described opportunities they had to progress their careers, whilst others described their development of specialist skills through OPD competencies. Staff had access to professional development opportunities and organisation-wide training programmes. Planned developments to children's and young people's services were also expected to create further opportunities for role development within the OPD team.

The provider had arrangements to support staff wellbeing and inclusion. These included an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy, an EDI champion, flexible working arrangements and a new designated OPD staff area. Staff told us leaders supported requests to change working patterns where possible to accommodate personal commitments.

Staff had access to a range of wellbeing services, including occupational health support, an employee assistance programme, mental health support services and mental health first aiders.

The service sought feedback from staff through surveys. Positive responses from the 2025 survey included trust in managers, authority and empowerment, intention to stay and customer focus. However, some staff survey domains scored less positively, including wellbeing, growth and development, strategic alignment and work processes. Leaders were aware of these findings and described organisational initiatives, such as the 2026 hospital values and action plan, intended to address issues raised.

During the prolonged vacancy in the Head of OPD role, clinical leads took on more managerial responsibilities, and senior managers provided additional leadership support. Staff told us the leadership of the clinical leads, with the visibility and support of senior leaders, had helped maintain the service during this period. A substantive Head of OPD had recently been appointed.

The provider also recognised staff contributions through a range of staff recognition schemes and awards. Overall, staff described a supportive working environment, with opportunities for development and access to wellbeing support, although some workforce concerns identified through staff feedback required ongoing attention.