HCA Healthcare UK The Harborne 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this outpatient service. This key question has been rated 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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service ensured that people were placed at the centre of their care and treatment planning. Staff worked in partnership with patients to understand their needs and preferences, and care decisions were made collaboratively, particularly when patients’ needs changed.

The service actively sought patient feedback to support ongoing improvement. Leaflets inviting comments were displayed throughout the department, and staff encouraged patients to share their experiences following their appointments. Results from the September 2025 patient experience dashboard showed consistently positive outcomes, with high scores for staff interactions, consultant communication and overall outpatient experience.

Patients told us they were fully involved in discussions about their treatment and felt staff explained clearly what to expect at each stage. The service also offered flexibility in appointment scheduling, allowing patients to choose or rearrange appointments online at a time that suited them. Most patients we spoke with found the online system straightforward and easy to use. Those who preferred not to use the online portal said they were able to contact the consultant’s medical secretary directly and described this process as simple and efficient.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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

Staff described effective communication within the department and strong collaboration with other services. This was demonstrated in a situation where outpatient staff identified that a patient attending a specialist appointment had additional care and safety needs. Staff recognised that something was not right, sensitively explored the patient’s circumstances and promptly escalated their concerns to the safeguarding and site lead. Together, they worked with the patient to ensure appropriate support was put in place, including making a safeguarding referral to the local authority. Staff remained on site well beyond their shift to ensure the patient was safe before leaving. This example showed that staff understood the diverse healthcare needs of people and their local communities, worked flexibly in response to concerns, and ensured care was joined up to support continuity and patient safety.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Translation services were available to support patients who did not speak English fluently. The service also provided written information leaflets in different languages on request, as well as easy-read versions when needed, helping to ensure information was accessible to patients with diverse communication and literacy needs. During observations, staff took time to check patients’ understanding of their appointments and treatment options, which helped mitigate potential communication barriers.

Results from the September 2025 patient experience dashboard showed that 100% of patients reported receiving answers about their medication in a way they could understand. Staff told us that patients discharged home were given the Outpatients department contact number, a copy of their consent form and any relevant information to support their ongoing care. Staff also explained that if patients asked questions they could not immediately answer, they were able to contact the consultant directly to obtain the correct information.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 sought feedback from patients through listening events and surveys, and patients were provided with clear information on how to make a complaint. Patients we spoke with told us they felt confident about who to approach and what steps to take if they wished to raise a concern. Complaints were monitored through departmental and governance meetings and were thoroughly investigated in line with the service’s policy.

The service provided a complaints log for the previous 12 months, which showed that seven complaints had been made regarding the outpatient department. The log clearly recorded the actions taken and the outcomes for each case. All complaints were managed in accordance with the complaints policy, and formal complainants received written responses explaining how their concerns were reviewed, what the investigation found, and what steps the provider would take to prevent similar issues from occurring in future. This demonstrated a transparent and learning-focused approach to complaint management.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was designed to be accessible and timely for people who may have greater difficulty accessing care. Staff told us that the booking team and consultants’ secretaries monitored patients who did not attend their appointments and followed up promptly to reschedule, helping to ensure treatment pathways were not disrupted. On discharge, patients were given a contact number for the outpatient department for any post-visit queries, as well as ward contact details for out-of-hours support.

Patients we spoke with reported receiving appointments promptly and did not experience long waits on the day of their visit. The service applied clear inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure care was safe and appropriate.

The service did not audit whether appointments started on time; however, leaders and staff told us that when delays occurred, patients were informed in advance and offered the option to reschedule rather than wait for a later appointment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service monitored patient data to identify whether people of different genders had varied experiences. However, this analysis did not extend to other characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, or race. Despite this limitation, the service took steps to address potential barriers and enhance the patient experience. For example, it maintained a publicly accessible Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging Hub, providing information and resources to support inclusive practice. All staff had completed training in learning disability and autism awareness, and staff we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of the communication and comprehension barriers some patients may face. They described working collaboratively with colleagues and patients to ensure information was understood and care was delivered appropriately.

The provider’s equality and diversity policy set out clear processes for promoting equal opportunities. It included guidance to prevent discrimination, including in relation to protected characteristics under the Equality Act, and emphasised the need for staff to apply these principles consistently when making decisions about care and treatment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People 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.

People were given sufficient time to ask questions about their treatment options, and staff provided additional support to help them understand what these options involved. This enabled patients to make informed choices and plan their future care effectively. When seeking consent for invasive procedures, staff ensured patients received clear information about the potential risks of undergoing the treatment, as well as the possible consequences of choosing not to proceed.

Outpatient staff and consultants told us that when patients were facing a difficult diagnosis or challenging treatment pathway, they took time to understand the individual’s worries and concerns. This approach helped staff identify the type of information, reassurance, and ongoing support the patient might need as their treatment progressed.