St Anthony's 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

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment this key question has been rated 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.

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 attended a Pre-Operative Assessment (POA) appointment in the Outpatient department (OPD) to assess their overall health and communication needs prior to surgical procedures. Clinics allowed patients' progress and wellbeing to be checked on their return to the hospital after their procedures. Any changes were monitored and would be documented on their hospital records.

Patients were supported to manage risks to their health and well-being through regular monitoring of their physical health needs. Staff used recognised assessment tools, including the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) for adult patients and the Paediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS) for children and young people, to identify early signs of deterioration and respond appropriately. A World Health Organisation (WHO) checklist was used for surgical interventions and there was a systematic process for tracking the suitability of surgical instruments, implants, and equipment, which included decontamination. Escalation processes were clearly understood by staff, and people and those important to them were involved in discussions and decisions about managing identified risks wherever possible. Staff supported discussions with patients about the risks and benefits of treatment.

We reviewed 12 patient records. There were red flags noted, consent verified, including whether this was verbal or signed and evidence of clinical review. It was also noted that patients were involved in their care planning.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff and the service delivered care in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. We reviewed patient feedback and found it to be positive. Patients told us they were given information that explained their treatment and how it was most appropriate for their needs. They said all levels of staff helped them prepare for the interventions provided, and aftercare advice was provided that supported their recovery.

Senior leaders shared updates to national guidance and corporate policies with the relevant heads of department. These were then cascaded down to staff through team meetings. Staff could review local policies through readily accessible IT and consider available methods to improve patient care.

Most policies we reviewed were up to date or, where necessary, under review. The hospital used best practice and national guidance, including guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), professional bodies such as the Royal Colleges, and regulatory bodies such as NHS England. There were regular departmental engagement activities, such as emailed colleague updates and an OPD newsletter. These highlighted hospital-based topics, but also shared clinical updates and departmental development, advice on clinical practice, and service-wide development. For example, IPC audit compliance for each department and changes to national clinical guidance.

OPD leaders attended rapid review and departmental meetings and were represented at quarterly governance meetings where clinical effectiveness, changes in clinical practice, and relevant guidance were routinely discussed.

The hospital benchmarked its performance nationally against others within the Spire group. The hospital was preparing its submission for the National Autism Accreditation and progressing its application for Endometriosis Accreditation. It had also achieved the Carers Federation’s ‘Young person friendly health provider’ award in September 2024.

OPD leaders attended rapid review and departmental meetings and were represented at quarterly governance meetings where clinical effectiveness, changes in clinical practice and relevant guidance were routinely discussed.’

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Overall, they shared their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked collaboratively to support patients through their care journey and deliver coordinated care. Effective communication processes were in place, including daily team huddles and structured handovers, which supported the sharing of information, risk identification, and operational planning. Staff across professional groups within OPD reported positive working relationships and felt able to raise concerns and challenge decisions where necessary.

The service maintained effective partnerships with external organisations, such as local children’s safeguarding services, and staff described good professional relationships with partner agencies. There were also contract meetings with NHS partners to monitor the provider’s performance and service delivery against contractual responsibilities. The Spire group’s corporate governance systems encouraged consistent ways of working across the organisation.

However, staff and patients described some challenges in communication between the hospital team and the centralised off-site booking service. Staff also told us they would welcome the support of a substantive OPD manager departmental leader to provide consistent clinical and managerial oversight following a prolonged vacancy in the role.

Leaders also recognised opportunities to increase utilisation of NHS pathways within OPD services and were addressing this through a utilisation improvement programme.

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, reduced their future needs for care and support.

The service supported people to make informed decisions about their health and well-being. The service promoted healthy lifestyles and provided patients with access to information, education and support to help them manage their health and wellbeing.

Information promoting healthier lifestyle choices was readily available throughout the OPD, including posters, leaflets and QR codes. These provided information about health conditions and signposted patients to relevant support services, including mental health support for younger people.

Patients could access additional support within the hospital. Information about specialist services, including the hospital's Dementia Lead, was clearly displayed to help patients identify and access appropriate support.

The service engaged with the local community to promote health awareness and education. Leaders described a programme of information events for local healthcare professionals and members of the public. Topics included prostate health and endometriosis.

Staff signposted patients to relevant health initiatives and support services where appropriate. For example, patients receiving gynaecological care could access information about women's health services and specialist support available following surgery.

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.

The service used a range of performance measures and governance processes to monitor outcomes and support continuous improvement. Whilst there were opportunities to strengthen oversight of adult did not attend (DNA) rates and reduce consultant-related cancellations, leaders had systems in place to review performance and maintain oversight of service quality.

The service monitored performance and used a range of data sources to identify opportunities for improvement, including monthly, quarterly, and annual audit cycles. Incident data was benchmarked against other Spire locations to identify trends, monitor performance and review areas of variation.

The service monitored cancellation rates and clinic delays and used available information to oversee service performance. Signage was used when consultant clinics were running late, helping to keep both staff and patients updated about delays.

Between June 2025 and May 2026, there were 42 outpatient appointment cancellations, 40 of which occurred on the day of the appointment. Most cancellations were attributed to consultant unavailability. During the same period, there were 54 children's appointments recorded as 'not brought in' events and one adult DNA appointment, which was managed as an incident and investigated.

The service did not routinely monitor OPD DNA rates. Leaders told us this was because DNA rates were consistently low and most patients were privately funded, with appointments arranged at times that suited their needs. As a result, the service had not identified a requirement for additional interventions in this area.

The hospital met its external reporting obligations, including submissions to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN), Care Quality Commission and other relevant bodies. Local governance processes supported the monitoring of incidents, performance and patient outcomes, enabling leaders to review information, identify learning and take action where required.

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.

Staff consistently gained patient consent. They followed policies on patient consent and on specific measures to accommodate those with extra requirements, including people with a physical and/ or mental health disability. There was also guidance on gaining consent from those who might need assistance with communication.

We saw staff request consent before procedures, to check that patients were still comfortable going ahead. Staff could assess and record patients’ capacity to consent appropriately when needed and were able to explain what the processes would be when patients lacked capacity. The service also considered the person’s wishes, culture and history in planning their treatment. When we reviewed patient care notes, we saw that patient consent to treatment had been recorded.