- Independent hospital
St Anthony's Hospital
Assessment report published 7 September 2026
Contents
Ratings - Surgery
Our view of the service
We carried out a short announced, responsive and comprehensive assessment of services for Surgery on 16 and 17 June 2026, due to risk and extended time since the last rating.
The hospital’s primary service was adult surgery. Surgical services provided elective surgeries which included general surgery, gynecology, cardiac surgery, urology, gastroenterology, dermatology, ophthalmology, cosmetic surgery, rheumatology, vascular surgery and neurosurgery. There were 3 wards where surgical patients were cared for. However, at the time of assessment 2 wards were open due to low acuity and used for the care of inpatient and day surgical patients. The location had 6 operating theatres, of which 5 were used for surgery and 1 interventional hybrid theatre used for cardiology and interventional radiology. The service also had 6 anaesthetic rooms, 5 preoperative clinic rooms and 9 recovery beds.
The service provided care to both private, insurance and NHS funded patients. From May 2025 to April 2026, the service had 7,420 surgical cases of which 67% were for insured patients, 18% were self-paying patients, and 15% were NHS patients.
The quality of care and treatment of children aged between 16 and 18 years of age undergoing surgical procedures was not reviewed as part of the assessment of surgery.
We rated the service as good. We found 2 breaches of the regulation to mandatory training and governance. Not all staff were up to date with their training modules. Governance systems were not always effective in ensuring leaders reported notifications of events and incidents to the commission in a timely manner without delays. This requires improvement to ensure staff deliver safe care to patients.
The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and lessons learned and improvements were identified and shared with staff. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and safe systems of working.
There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience in departments, wards and in theatres to ensure high quality care and treatment. Managers made sure staff received training and had regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care.
Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated.
Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment was based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patients’ pain was quickly identified and well managed.
Staff assessed patients nutritional and hydration needs, made sure patients had sufficient to eat and drink or alternatives as needed. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.
Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff responded to patients in a timely way. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions and were given access to specialist services, including from allied health professionals.
Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided information which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback, knew who to speak with if they had concerns and were confident the service took their concerns seriously.
The service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access.
The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
The service supported staff wellbeing.
Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust.
Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
Leaders had sound oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems.
Staff with protected characteristics felt supported.
There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.
However, there was unstable leadership in the past 18 months, which affected consistency in leadership oversight and strategic direction.
We have requested an action plan, this will be requested upon publication of the final report.
People's experience of this service
We spoke to 9 patients in the service. Patients were positive about the staff treating them with warmth and kindness and providing effective care and treatment. Patients with protected characteristics felt supported. Patients confirmed their pain was well managed and they were supported to move around as much as possible after their operation. We observed that call bells were responded to promptly, and patients consistently told us they could access assistance when needed.
Patients told us they were given time to ask question about their procedure and staff had checked they understood what they were having done. Staff were described as helpful, kind, professional, and respectful. We observed multidisciplinary staff treating patients with compassionate care, respect and dignity throughout the assessment. Patients spoke positively about the food and environment.