Woodthorpe Hospital

Updated 26 September 2025

Woodthorpe Hospital is operated by Ramsay Health Care UK Operations Limited. The hospital serves Nottingham and the Nottinghamshire area. It provides surgery, endoscopy and outpatients care.

On 11 March and 25 April 2025, we carried out an unannounced assessment of three assessment service groups provided by the service at this location. This was an unannounced comprehensive assessment of all the services provided at this location. This assessment was undertaken due to the length of time since the service was previously inspected.

Updated 13 January 2025

We carried out this assessment on 11 March and 25 April 2025. The assessment was undertaken due to the length of time since the previous inspection of the service which had been carried out using our previous inspection methodology. At this assessment we assessed all quality statements in all key questions under our Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and this has resulted in updated ratings. Whilst this is not the first inspection of the hospital it is the first inspection of the endoscopy service as its own assessment service group (ASG). The findings were as follows:

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

Effective:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

Caring:

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

Responsive:

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Well-led:

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on 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. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. However, the service did not have a named freedom to speak up guardian on site.

Updated 13 January 2025

Our view of the service

We carried out this comprehensive assessment on 11 March 2025. We previously inspected outpatients jointly with diagnostic imaging so we cannot compare our new ratings directly with previous ratings. The assessment was undertaken due to the length of time since the previous assessment of the service, which had been carried out using our previous inspection methodology. At this assessment we assessed all quality statements in all key questions under our Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and this has resulted in new ratings. The findings were as follows:

Safe:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. People were protected and kept safe. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff involved people in planning any changes.

Effective:

People were active partners in the assessments of their needs. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. The hospital had policies and care pathways in place that were in line with national guidance, for example, the service had a policy on mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards however, staff were not always knowledgeable about these as they told us it was very unusual for them to undertake mental capacity assessments

The service completed a range of audits, including medical records, patient consent and pre-operative assessments

Caring:

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and care givers.

Staff treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were supported to do so.

Responsive:

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people, and the communities served. It also worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care.

People were involved in decisions about their care. Staff talked with patients, families and care givers in a way they could understand and ensured they were full partners in their treatment and care.

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback.

Well-led:

Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff.

However,staff we spoke with were uncertain about if there were Freedom to Speak up Guardians, (FTSUG) and if they were the same as mental health first aiders.

Updated 13 January 2025

We carried out this assessment on 11 March and 25 April 2025. The assessment was undertaken due to the length of time since the previous inspection of the service which had been carried out using our previous inspection methodology. At this assessment we assessed all quality statements in all key questions under our Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and this has resulted in updated ratings. The findings were as follows:

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

Effective:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

Caring:

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

Responsive:

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Well-led:

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on 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. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. However, the service did not have a named freedom to speak up guardian on site.

Updated 19 May 2016

Patients were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents. They understood their safeguarding responsibilities and demonstrated an understanding around consent and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Patient risks were assessed and steps taken to minimise these risks. Medicines and records were stored securely.

Care reflected national guidance, and staff received training to be competent in their role. The diagnostic and imaging department participated in the hospital audit schedule. There was good multi-disciplinary working and effective working relationships throughout the department and the rest of the hospital.

Staff treated patients in a respectful, kind and professional manner, maintaining their privacy and dignity at all times. Patients and their relatives were pleased with the standard of care they received. The friends and family test (FFT) results for January 2016 reported that 99% of the NHS patients would recommend the outpatients and diagnostic and imaging department to their family and friends. However, response rates to the friend and family test (FFT) were low (7%).

Services were designed to meet the needs of the population and all patients were seen within 18 weeks of referral to the hospital.

There was a clear vison and strategy for the service. There were clear lines of accountability in the outpatients and diagnostic imaging department. Staff spoke positively about their line managers.

Effective governance systems were in place and lessons were learnt and changes in practices resulted in response to complaints.

There was however, nursing vacancies within the outpatients department, although active recruitment was ongoing. In addition, not all staff within the outpatients department had completed their mandatory training.

The environment within the department was not compliant with HBN 00-09. There were hand operated taps and carpeted floor in the consulting rooms. However, the hospital had plans to address this. A small number of staff were not seen to adhere to the bare below the elbow policy.

There was not monitoring of waiting times for patients once they have arrived in the department or cancellation rates of clinics.