Woodthorpe 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

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Score: 3

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 were able to self-refer privately or access services through the NHS via a referral. At this initial entry stage, all patients completed a health screening questionnaire, which was reviewed before submission for consultant review. This included assessment for suitability of procedure and initial consent. During the preoperative stage staff made sure that patients health, care, wellbeing and communication needs were assessed following on from referral. The service had clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, if a patient had some risk factors, they would be discussed at a complex case meeting to make a final decision. If a patient had any additional needs that could not be managed at this hospital, they would not proceed.

Patients we spoke to during the assessment told us staff had a person-centred approach and assessed their needs regularly. Staff told us they regularly assessed patients needs. On the wards staff did 2 hourly rounds and would visit patients more often if required.

Score: 3

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

The service had up-to-date and evidence-based policies and procedures in place, which were updated when they needed to be. Staff at the service had access to these policies via the hospital intranet.

Whilst on the assessment we observed staff consistently following best practice throughout appointments and during procedures. Staff demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of best practice.

Patients had accurate advice on nutrition and hydration prior to procedures. Appropriate nutrition and hydration was provided for patients whilst using the service.

Score: 3

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Whilst on the assessment we observed good teamworking between staff within each of the teams. Staff also worked well across different teams involved in patient care, for example, wards and theatres, or preoperative and physiotherapy. Staff also told us that they had positive relationships across the whole hospital and worked well together.

Whilst on the assessment we saw staff from triage, preoperative care, theatres and wards all attending the same meetings, alongside colleagues from other areas of the hospital. They collaborated and discussed patients collectively to ensure all views and areas are considered.

Score: 3

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, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There were information leaflets available across the hospital, and leaflets relevant to the patient and surgery were provided during the process.

Health factors, such as drinking, smoking and vaping were discussed during the preoperative assessment and health advice about them was given regarding the surgery. The potential impact of these health factors on the surgery outcome was explained.

Score: 3

The service routinely monitored people's care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service monitored its clinical outcomes through patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data. As part of the assessment process, we were provided with data for cataract patient satisfaction and success, carpal tunnel surgery, hip surgery success and patient satisfaction, knee surgery success and patient satisfaction and shoulder surgery success and patient satisfaction. The service performed well across these data sets and benchmarked this data nationally with other hospital group providers.

The most recent national joint registry (NJR) compliance date was 100% with the service achieving gold standard for data provision for 2024.

The service performed well on the private healthcare information network (PHIN). The service scored 97.8% (respect and dignity), 92.8% (patient experience) and 96.7% (friends and family test). The service benchmarked this data nationally with other hospital group providers.

The service had received silver accreditation for aseptic non touch technique (ANTT) in January 2025. Then following on from the site visit, the service went on to achieve gold accreditation In July 2025.

Getting it right first time (GIRFT) data demonstrated had higher than average and is in line with NHS for its inclusion of more complex patients with higher co-morbidities. Additionally, data provided by GIRFT highlighted that despite the higher complexity of patients the service was in the top 2% for positive outcomes for patients based upon mortality, revision rates and infections.

Score: 3

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Whilst on the assessment we saw that patient consent was always obtained appropriately at all stages throughout the surgical process. Consent was also documented appropriately in patient records where required.

The service did not operate on patients where it was known they lacked capacity to consent to treatment.

The service audited consent as part of the nursing and medical records audit. On the most recent submission for consent on 17 December 2024 the hospital wide score was 97%. There was one issue with illegible consultant handwriting which was discussed with the consultant involved.