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

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 the last assessment, we rated this service as Good. At this assessment, we rated this service as Good because the needs of patients 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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with patients. Staff discussed how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’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 their mental health, dementia and safeguarding leads.

Staff were aware that some patients aged between 16 and 18 years of age were children and adapted the service to take account of this, such as having a dedicated young people waiting room.

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

Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural, dietary and religious preferences. Staff and patients we spoke with told us that the catering services adapted to the needs of the patients. Patients spoke positively about the food and the menu choices.

We reviewed 6 patient records and care plans to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. We saw that multidisciplinary staff consulted with patients at every stage of their care and updated their individual care plans. Patients we spoke with told us they felt informed and involved in planning their care and discharge in a way that met their individual needs.

As per Royal College guidelines, private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or partially), they were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the services to be provided, including as to the amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible this was always provided in writing prior to the commencement of the services. This ensured patients could make informed choices and all costs were communicated in an open and transparent manner.

All patients were made aware of the arrangements the hospital had for emergency provision and intensive care. This was usually included in the preadmission information.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients 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 where relevant.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention.

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

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health. We asked if information was available in alternative languages and were told that any required leaflets could be produced. Information was also available on the services website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

The service generally made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients told us staff made it easy to give feedback and express any concerns they had, and staff were responsive and efficient in the response and actions. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about treatment plans.

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. Patients, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

Complaints or concerns were investigated thoroughly and managed in a transparent way, and patients received a response in good time. Complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. From 1 June 2025 to 31 May 2026, there had been a total of 39 complaints in the service, of which 3 were open and none were overdue. We reviewed a formal complaint and noted it had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy.

Patients could take any unresolved complaints to a third-party organisation or to the parliamentary ombudsman, if an NHS patient. Patients were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. Where improvements were required as a result, patients had the opportunity to be involved in shaping the solutions and measuring the impact.

From 1 June 2025 to 31 May 2026, the service had 1 complaint which was escalated to stage 2 of their complaint process, which was reviewed by a director. However, no complaint was escalated to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS).

Learning from complaints and concerns is seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. For example, the service now had a new process in place to ensure bookings for infusion would not be accepted without a prescription completed by the consultant. Staff told us this helped prevent delay in surgical procedures and treatment for patients.

The service made sure that patients 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. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards (NHS patients via the choose and book). Where there were large waiting lists, these were monitored and reduced over time.

Referral to treatment (RTT) performance was generally positive. More than 90% of patients were seen within 18 weeks in most months, although performance ranged from 84.2% to 95.2%. The number of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks remained relatively low, ranging from 50 to 115 patients each month. Very few patients waited longer than 40 weeks and almost none waited longer than 104 weeks, indicating effective management of long waiting times. RTT performance was particularly strong in cardiology and in most months for general surgery. However, trauma and orthopaedics and ENT services experienced periods of lower performance, with a higher proportion of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks and occasional increases in the number of patients waiting more than 52 weeks, suggesting periods where demand may have exceeded available capacity Managers monitored waiting times, where this was necessary and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets.

The hospital staff managed the bed occupancy and patient flow well. From June 2025 to May 2026 the average bed utilisation rate was 58.6% and average length of stay was 2.4. This meant that patients were supported to move through the surgical pathway efficiently, with timely discharge once they were clinically ready and appropriate use of available bed capacity. This helped reduce the risk of unnecessary and hospital acquired infections.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. From 1 June 2025 to 31 May 2026, the total number of cancelled procedures was 97 (1.3%), of which 27% were avoidable and cancelled on the day of surgery. The cancellation data showed that 13.4% of patients were unwell on admission, had unresolved symptoms and were unfit for procedure (10.3%) and failure of pre-operative assessment (9.3%). Other reasons of cancellations include unavailable equipment (7.2%) and consultants, surgeon or theatre staff not available (9.3%). When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Staff planned patients’ discharges carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs. Staff liaised with GP’s and community services when patients had complex needs.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend (DNA) appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements. Hospital data showed that in the last 12 months before assessment, there has been no DNA in the service.

Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning and delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreter services by telephone or face to face.

Discharge arrangements optimised the outcomes for all patients, including those with protected characteristics. Where necessary, carers and community services were involved to encourage and support a return to the patient’s pre-admission condition.

Patients were supported to plan 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 plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer if they wished.

Staff discussed health lifestyles for going home and recovery from the patient's operation. They reinforced key information and gave written advice via email based on current best practice.

Patients who had undergone surgery that altered their body appearance or functions permanently, were provided with access to ongoing support and advice for managing their condition.

Discharge summaries were given to the patient to take home and where possible, GP and follow up appointments were made before discharge.