HCA Healthcare UK The Harborne Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This is the first time we have inspected this service. At this inspection we rated the key question of caring as good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. Staff listened to, understood and responded to the needs of people and acted to minimise distress. Staff wellbeing was well promoted to enable them to always deliver person-centred care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. All patients we spoke with told us how kind and caring staff had been during their admission.

Staff ensured the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of the patients was respected and upheld at all times. All patients had a single room which was ensuite and staff ensured all confidential conversations occurred in rooms away from others. In pre-assessment, staff ensured conversations happened in rooms where doors were closed and curtains drawn to maintain the confidentiality of the patient’s information.

Patients felt staff listened to them and communicated with them appropriately, in a way they could understand. We observed staff communicating with patients in a way which met their needs.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients’ individual needs and preferences were understood, and these were reflected in their care, treatment and support. Patients rarely had a long stay within the service. However, this would not prevent staff from ensuring any individual needs identified would not be met. We reviewed feedback from patients which identified where staff had understood what their needs were and planned to meet these needs.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs were understood and met. The service had multifaith rooms and access to all-faith leaders for patients to access spiritual care if they required this support during their admission. In addition to this, patients were also able to seek support from specialist nurses who were available at the service.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. We reviewed positive feedback from patients who had highlighted how the service had ensured they had control over their care and the importance of this for them.

Patients had access to their friends and family while using the service. Patient’s family and friends were welcome to remain with the patient during their hospital stay. We observed a relative asking staff about visiting times for when the patient had their surgery. They were advised they were welcome to remain in the patient's room to wait for them to return.

Staff made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment. Patients we spoke with during our inspection told us they were aware of their condition, the surgery they required, and plans for any ongoing treatment or follow up.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff took account of patients’ needs, views, wishes and comfort and ensured they were a priority. They acted quickly to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. Staff ensured patients who returned from theatre had their pain monitored and provided pain relief when it was required. Patients were given call bells, so they were able to call for assistance when they needed help. Staff were answering call bells in a timely manner.

Patients and their families could give feedback on the service and their treatment, and staff supported them to do this. Patients were sent an email after their discharge and were encouraged to provide their feedback. Information from the most recent survey in December 2025 showed 96.5% of patients who responded reported they had a positive overall impression of the surgical admission service and they were likely to recommend the service to their friends and family. In addition to this, we also had feedback which was specifically related to theatres. Information from the December 2025 survey showed 97.9% of patients who responded had a positive overall impression of theatre staff. However, it was noted that since October 2025, response rates had reduced.

The service also collated additional feedback from patients through thank you cards and held patient experience action meetings. Within the patient experience action meeting, a record of actions and updates were recorded. This was similar to the ‘you said, we did’ system which held the service accountable to responding to patient needs.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. However, there were a few members of staff who had concerns about their wellbeing.

Patients received safe, effective and person-centred care by staff who mostly had their wellbeing needs prioritised by the service. The service had implemented several wellbeing and support measures. Staff who relocated to the service were provided a relocation package which staff appreciated. Staff were also offered health and wellbeing benefits as well as staff being encouraged to continue to grow in the service through further education and training. Staff had access to counselling services or mental wellbeing applications. In addition to this staff told us they were also supporting women who were going through menopause. Staff were also provided financial support if this was required.

Good staff morale and opportunities for growth were important to the provider as well as the local senior leadership team. Where possible, staff were supported with flexible working arrangements.

Staff recognition was important in the service and there were various recognition programmes. Daisy awards and Bee Awards were for staff and from nominations from patients. Staff also told us there were ‘employee of the quarter’ awards. There was a celebration day which was organised to celebrate staff achievements.

People’s experience of the service was driven by a culture that normalised good wellbeing, inclusivity, active listening and open conversations. People were supported by staff who mostly felt valued by their leaders and colleagues. Staff at the time of our inspection were positive about the culture within the service and most felt listened to and respected. Staff told us they were not afraid to speak up if they had concerns. They were aware of all avenues available to them to share their concerns. At the time of our inspection we shared with the leadership the concerns over the challenges faced by staff within the pre-assessment service and the fragility of the service and how this impacted them. Shortly after our inspection, we were contacted on 4 occasions where staff raised concerns anonymously about experiences which had impacted their wellbeing.