St Anthony's 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’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.

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.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach and adapted care and treatment to meet the diverse needs, preferences and circumstances of the people using the service. Staff considered patients' individual needs, preferences and circumstances when planning and delivering care. We saw evidence that services were adapted to meet patients' needs. For example, paediatric blood test clinics had been aligned with paediatric scanning appointments to reduce the number of visits required and improve the patient experience.

The service had systems to identify and support patients with communication needs. Translation and language support services were available, and information about accessing these services was displayed within the department. Staff were supported by the Spire-wide ‘Accessible Information Standard’ guidance, which helped ensure people's communication needs were identified and met throughout their care journey.

Patients with complex needs were supported through personalised assessment and care planning. Pre-Operative Assessment (POA) standards required patients with complex health needs, or those identified as high anaesthetic risk, to be offered face-to-face assessments to enable appropriate clinical review and decision-making.

The hospital had initiatives and designated staff to support patients with additional needs, including a dementia lead and dignity champion. Clinicians received learning disability training to help ensure care was tailored to the needs of people with a learning disability. Staff also considered dietary requirements and allergies during pre-operative assessments and liaised with catering services to ensure these needs could be met during admission.

Young people aged 16 to 17 years were assessed by the paediatric nursing team to determine whether the adult care pathway was appropriate for their individual needs.

Staff worked collaboratively with other clinical teams to support person-centred decision-making. POA staff attended multidisciplinary team meetings, where complex cases and best-interest decisions for patients who lacked capacity could be discussed and reviewed.

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 worked closely with local healthcare providers to support coordinated patient care. Patients referred through elective NHS pathways had access to pre-operative assessment and post-operative outpatient care, including wound management where required. . Staff told us they were in regular contact with GP practices and local hospitals to support continuity of care. Evidence showed regular engagement with local trusts that commissioned their services. As well as good working relationships with local children’s services, working collaboratively with the Sutton Local Safeguarding Children Partnership.

OPD service ran engagement sessions to raise awareness of services available at the hospital, which were accessible to local professionals and the community.

The service considered the diversity and changing needs of the local population, which was predominantly composed of working-age adults and families. They described plans to develop the children and young person (CYP) services, and there were OPD screening services that supported early identification, prevention and continuity of care. This included men’s and women’s health screening services. These approaches had the potential to improve early access, provide more seamless services and better meet the needs of the local population.

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

Patients said they felt well prepared for their procedures and understood their care plans. They told us they were fully informed and given choices about their treatment. This enabled patients to involve members of their support network in consultations and follow-up appointments.

Staff provided accurate information and created opportunities for questions to be asked by patients, their relatives, and carers at different stages of care. We were told by patients that they and their families were kept informed about next steps, including aftercare advice. Patients had access to written information about the hospital and its services, as well as general health information, such as leaflets signposting specialist services.

Language support services were available for patients who required them. However, when we spoke with staff, some were uncertain about how to access these services. During our assessment, additional signage was introduced in consulting rooms and information about accessing language support services was reinforced with staff through daily huddles.

The hospital supported patients to receive effective care and treatment by providing communication aids to meet individual needs. There were signs within the OPD informing patients of the hospital’s accessible information standards, inviting patients to inform staff if they had communication support needs. For example, hearing loops were available to support patients with hearing impairments and large print for those who required this. There were also different means of communicating information, such as via text, email or via the hospital website.

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 service actively encouraged feedback, listened to people's concerns and used learning from complaints and patient experiences to support service improvement.

Staff understood the complaints process and knew how to access relevant policies and guidance. They told us they encouraged patients and those close to them to raise concerns openly and sought to resolve issues promptly wherever possible. Staff told us that early resolution often resulted in better outcomes for patients and reduced the need for formal complaints.

Patients were provided with information to help them understand their care and raise concerns when required. We saw clear information displayed throughout OPD, including information about clinic delays and guidance advising patients to speak with staff if waiting times exceeded 15 minutes. Information relating to fees for self-funded patients was also clearly displayed. Patients told us the information provided was clear and that staff were available to answer questions.

Patients we spoke with said they felt comfortable raising concerns and were confident staff would listen and respond appropriately. None of the patients we spoke with had any current complaints about OPD services.

The service used patient feedback and complaints to inform learning and improvement. Feedback, concerns, and complaints were reviewed through weekly rapid review meetings and quarterly governance meetings. Learning from complaints was shared with staff through meetings, departmental updates, and organisational communications.

The OPD received 26 complaints between June 2025 and May 2026, 24 of which had been closed. Leaders monitored complaint handling against organisational key performance indicators aligned with Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) timescales. Between October 2025 and March 2026, the hospital achieved over 97% compliance with its complaints management targets.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service demonstrated a commitment to equitable access by providing accessible facilities, making reasonable adjustments for people with additional needs and monitoring capacity to improve access to care. Whilst opportunities existed to strengthen performance monitoring and increase the use of NHS capacity, patients were generally able to access services in a timely and appropriate way.

The service took steps to ensure people could access care and treatment in a way that met their individual needs. The hospital environment was accessible, with level access throughout OPD, automatic entrance doors, wheelchair-accessible toilet facilities, and designated disabled parking spaces located close to the main entrance. Hearing loop facilities were available at the OPD reception.

Clear signage throughout the hospital helped people navigate the service independently. Patients told us they found the hospital easy to access and the OPD straightforward to navigate.

The OPD operated a six-day service and provided a range of clinics for children, young people, adults and older people. There were plans to expand services for children and young people through the development of additional day surgery pathways.

Policies and processes were in place to identify and support patients with additional needs, including people with disabilities and those requiring language support. Staff told us they considered people's needs holistically and worked across teams to ensure patients received the most appropriate care and support.

Patients requiring additional support were offered longer appointments and face-to-face pre-operative assessments where appropriate. Patients told us appointments were offered promptly and that they were usually able to choose dates and times that met their needs. Leaders reported low rates of non-attendance and explained this was supported by proactive appointment booking, confirmation processes and communication with patients before their appointments.

The service provided NHS-funded, self-pay, and insured care pathways. Waiting times for NHS-funded services were monitored against national standards and contractual requirements, and leaders took action to manage waiting lists when required. However, referral-to-treatment times were not specifically monitored for outpatient appointments.

Leaders recognised opportunities to improve access further through increased utilisation of NHS pathways. Staff described ongoing utilisation projects that reviewed clinic capacity, consultant availability, cancellation rates and use of clinic rooms to help maximise access to services in the future.

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.

Staff demonstrated a commitment to delivering fair and inclusive care.

Staff told us they provided care and treatment equitably, regardless of whether patients accessed services through NHS-funded, insured, or self-pay pathways.

Patients reported positive experiences and outcomes, and systems were in place to support equality, diversity, and inclusion across the service. Patients felt they were treated fairly and consistently.

Staff and patients said the hospital's location improved access to elective care by enabling people to receive treatment closer to home, reducing the need to travel to larger hospitals further away.

The OPD promoted an inclusive culture where people were encouraged to share their views and experiences. Staff had completed equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) training, and compliance was reported as 100%. Staff also had access to additional support, including an EDI champion and patient experience lead, to help ensure care was delivered fairly and that patients were not disadvantaged.

Patients told us they had positive experiences of care and treatment and were satisfied with the outcomes achieved. For example, one patient explained that accessing treatment through the service had enabled them to avoid a lengthy wait for treatment elsewhere, which they valued.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff worked with patients and other professionals to plan care appropriately, ensuring that current and anticipated needs were considered when making decisions about treatment and ongoing care.

Patients were supported to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Patients told us staff explained treatment options clearly and in a way they could understand. They felt comfortable asking questions and were supported to make decisions about their care.

Staff worked collaboratively to plan care for patients with additional or complex needs. POA staff participated in multidisciplinary team meetings held three times a week, enabling discussion of complex cases and supporting coordinated care planning across services.

Patients with additional needs were offered enhanced support and assessment. This included opportunities for face-to-face pre-operative assessments, provision of extended appointments and, where appropriate, face-to-face reviews with a consultant anaesthetist for patients assessed as high risk prior to procedures requiring anaesthesia.

Records we reviewed demonstrated that staff considered patients' future care and treatment needs when planning services. Where applicable, documentation included Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments supporting personalised care planning and informed decision-making.