The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

The New Victoria Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

184 Coombe Lane West, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 7EG (020) 8949 9000

Provided and run by:
Metabolic Services Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment of Diagnostic imaging

Date of assessment: 14 April to 15 April 2026

This assessment looked at the New Victoria Hospital diagnostic imaging services. This is the first assessment for the diagnostic imaging service as a stand alone assessment service group. We rated this service as good.

We inspected all the quality statements in this assessment across the five key questions: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

During our inspection we visited: x-ray, fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the cardiac diagnostic service.

At this assessment we found patients were kept safe and protected from avoidable harm. There were effective processes to monitor the quality and safety of the service and ensure patients could access the service. The service had a positive culture with capable leaders. Governance processes were robust, and leaders mitigated risks.

During an assessment of Outpatients

Date of assessment: 14 April to 15 April 2026

We assessed the New Victoria Hospital outpatient department (OPD) using our comprehensive inspection methodology and carried out an announced inspection on 14 and 15 April 2026. New Victoria Hospital is an independent healthcare hospital located in Kingston Upon Thames. In August 2025, New Victoria Hospital was acquired by Metabolic Services Limited as part of Bupa.

The OPD provides outpatient clinics to predominantly private patients, where patients of all ages were seen for care and treatment without being admitted as inpatients. The OPD clinics were generally consultant-led but also offered a range of nurse-led interventions. Since our last assessment, the OPD services have expanded, increasing their capacity for services. When we visited, the OPD department housed 14 consulting rooms rented by consultants, 2 treatment rooms,1 gynaecology suite, 1 audiology room, 1 cardiac diagnostic room & 1 phlebotomy room. Consultants used the rooms for consultations, including minor medical and surgical treatments.

The figures for March 2025 to March 2026 show the total number of adult patients seen by the OPD was 50,389. Of this, the 3 highest numbers for specialist clinics were in haematology, 5,070, Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) 3,782 and dermatology at, 3,335. Figures from the same period showed for patients who were categorised as Children and Young People (CYP) aged from 0 to 18years, the total number seen was 5,991. The 3 highest numbers for specialist clinics were in ENT 1204, Gastroenterology 1,229 and Orthopaedics 1,030.

During this assessment, we did not assess the private GP service and the separately housed outpatient physiotherapy service.

At our last assessment, we rated the OPD as good. At this assessment, the rating for the OPD remained good

During an assessment of Surgery

We carried out a short‑notice assessment on 14 and 15 April 2026, as the service had not been inspected since 2016.

The hospital’s primary service was adult surgery. The surgical provision included a 14-bed day surgery unit and a 19-bed, single roomed inpatient ward (Alexandra Ward). There were 3 operating theatres and 1 endoscopy suite.

The hospital provided a range of surgical services, including orthopaedics, gynaecology, urology, colorectal, and gastroenterology. Paediatric patients were treated for day surgery procedures only. The service provided care to both private and NHS funded patients and began providing NHS gender affirmation procedures (female to male) in December 2021.

The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and lessons learned and improvements were identified and shared with staff. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and safe systems of working.

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience in departments, wards and in theatres to ensure high quality care and treatment. Managers made sure staff received training and had regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care.

Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated.

Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment were based on the latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patients’ pain was quickly identified and well managed.

Staff assessed patients nutritional and hydration needs, made sure patients had sufficient to eat and drink or alternatives as needed. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff responded to patients in a timely way. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions and were given access to specialist services, including from allied health professionals.

Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided information which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback, knew who to speak with if they had concerns and were confident the service took their concerns seriously.

The service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access.

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

The service supported staff wellbeing.

Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, 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.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders had oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems. Staff with protected characteristics felt supported.

There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.

However, staff did not consistently adhere to general data protection regulations (GDPR) . Training in this area was inconsistent, and some agency staff were observed wearing identification badges from other providers while on duty.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

Date of assessment: 14 April to 15 April 2026. The New Victoria Hospital provides outpatients, diagnostic imaging and surgery services to both private and NHS funded patients. The service also began providing NHS gender affirmation procedures (female to male) in December 2021.

This assessment looked at diagnostic imaging, outpatients, and surgery services which we rated as good. The rating of New Victoria Hospital remains good.

Our assessment of diagnostic imaging found the imaging department had a strong culture of safety. Staff investigated incidents and shared learning to promote good practice and continuous improvement. People were safe and protected from bullying, harassment, and avoidable harm. However, not all staff had completed mandatory radiation safety training or adult basic life support training. In addition, lone working practices in MRI were not always in line with local rules. Staff delivered care and treatment in line with evidence-based practice and recognised standards. They worked effectively across teams to support people and ensure continuity of care. Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. People's needs were listened to; people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Leaders were experienced, skilled and knowledgeable and embodied the culture and values of the organisation. Staff were proud to work at the department, there was strong collaborative team working and staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff understood the departments vision and values, which were embedded in their day-to-day practice. Leaders maintained oversight of risks and performance through established governance processes.

Our assessment of outpatient services found that there was a positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Leaders investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the wider team. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse, recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. The environment was clean, and infection risks were well managed. Patients’ needs were assessed promptly, and they were actively involved in planning their care. Staff monitored patients’ outcomes and delivered evidence-based treatment. Staff cared for patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Leaders were approachable and cared about colleagues’ wellbeing. They were capable and worked to ensure the long-term sustainability of the organisation. Leaders valued and empowered staff and encouraged colleagues to speak up if they had concerns. They also worked with other services and local communities to build relationships and improve people’s care.

Our assessment of surgery services found the service had a good learning culture. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and lessons were learnt and improvements were identified and shared with staff. Patients were protected from harm because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and followed safe systems of working. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience to ensure high quality care and treatment. Facilities and equipment met the needs of patients, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated. Staff ensured patients understood their care and treatment so they could give informed consent, and patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Care and treatment were based on the latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patients’ pain was quickly identified and well managed. Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion and protected their privacy and dignity. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback. Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust.