The New Victoria 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

The service cared for patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Staff treated patients as individuals and tailored their care to their specific needs. Patients had choice over their treatment and staff were quick to respond to their changing needs. Leaders were approachable and cared about colleagues’ wellbeing. Staff were encouraged to develop in their careers and felt supported by line managers and the group senior leadership.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We saw that outpatient staff were polite, friendly and helpful with patients, from their initial arrival to the end of their outpatient appointment. Patients told us that staff introduced themselves, explained the next steps and were happy to answer any questions they had. Staff advised patients if there were any delays to appointments. They apologised and gave regular updates about when they would be seen. Patients told us staff offered refreshments if they were waiting for a long period. Staff discussed treatment options with patients and their families. Staff members said they took care to consider patients’ individual needs. During our visit, we observed a member of staff had been allocated to a patient and their relative to support the patient through their OPD clinic journey, due to the patient’s additional needs. Patients waiting for their outpatient appointments told us that they were asked about their comfort and well-being. Patients and their relatives said staff were attentive and kind, delivering a caring and compassionate service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and ensured care, support and treatment reflected people’s needs, preferences and protected characteristics. Staff considered people’s strengths, abilities, culture, background and aspirations when delivering care.

The service had policies to support patients with additional needs. Staff had access to guidance on meeting religious and cultural requirements, and local interpreting services were available to support communication and informed decision‑making. Pre‑assessment questionnaires enabled patients to tell staff about their additional needs, this information was accessible to clinicians and supported personalised care planning. Patients with mobility needs could request support in advance or receive assistance on arrival, and staff could be allocated to support patients with additional needs throughout their outpatient journey.

There was a dedicated child‑friendly area within the main waiting space, which staff monitored. Child‑appropriate resources were available in the phlebotomy room to support younger patients. Staff told us the phlebotomy chair was spacious and fully reclining, which supported anxious patients. Senior leaders described initiatives to improve inclusivity within catering services, including increased vegan options and facilities for food segregation.

Patients told us their care was tailored to their needs, and staff worked with other agencies to optimise care. Policies set out clear responsibilities for recording patients’ needs, reducing the need for patients to repeat information and supporting continuity of care. For example, the pre‑assessment team worked with GPs and patients on specialist pathways, including patients under the gender affirmation pathway to help ensure their needs were met. There was also a referral system to the wellness team and guidance on patient passports for this patient group. Staff accessed equipment and support from inpatient wards to meet the needs of bariatric patients and were trained in safer moving and handling.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff provided options around treatment and encouraged patients to make the best decisions to suit them and their lifestyle. Staff and senior leaders told us about the hospitals flexible approach to scheduling clinics and making patient appointments. Extended appointments were available when patients were known to have additional needs or to require extra time for discussions with family members during their consultation. Patients said they felt they were in control of their care and treatment. Patients told us they were offered choice around appointment times and dates, information around the treatment options and enabled to be part of their treatment planning. One patient had discussions with their consultant about treatment alternatives, when only surgical options had been offered at different facilities. They said they were given the right information and support to make decisions about their ongoing treatment. Family members and friends were able to join consultations and encouraged to provide support for patients through treatment and aftercare. We observed a consultation where a relative was invited to be part of the patient’s consultation and included in the discussions around aftercare.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 told us they were always considerate of patient's preferences and would ask permission before touching them or conducting investigations. In line with the hospital’s chaperone policy, they would also ask people if they required a chaperone or any other accommodation to make them feel more comfortable.

Staff said they would try to resolve complaints and concerns as soon as they were raised by patients, as they believed this was the most effective way to resolve issues. Self-service access to hot and cold drinks was available to outpatients and their families whilst waiting for appointments within the OPD reception area.

Each OPD treatment and clinic room had in-room emergency intercom systems that would allow patients and staff to summon urgent help should it be required.

Patients told us OPD staff treated them well, showing kindness and provided good care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt valued and supported by local leaders and the wider group management. Staff also told us about the ‘family feel’ within the hospital, that it was a good place to work and that they felt a sense of pride working for the organisation. Staff received training for their role, and there were systems in place for all staff to receive appraisals. Figures for the Outpatient department (OPD) appraisal compliance was overall 91% which was above the hospital’s target of 90%. For example, nurses and Health Care Assistants (HCA’s) both had 100% compliance.

Many of the staff we spoke with had worked at the hospital for several years. Some staff described clear career pathways they had followed to progress, while others told us they were encouraged to develop specialist interests or lead specific projects within their roles. There was a long-standing ‘long service awards’ developed in recognition of staff’s commitment to the hospital.

Administrative staff told us they worked closely with clinical teams to ensure patients received accurate and timely information about appointments, test results and other updates.

Patients commented positively on the overall atmosphere within the service. The hospital had equality, diversity and inclusion policies to support fair treatment of staff. Flexible working arrangements were available, and staff told us leaders supported changes to shift patterns to better meet family commitments without reducing hours. This helped staff remain focused on patient care while at work.

Managers supported staff wellbeing and regularly reviewed wellbeing needs. Staff had access to occupational health services and an employee assistance programme. Senior leaders told us that, following the acquisition by Metabolic Services Limited as part of Bupa, staff had increased access to professional development opportunities and academy training courses. Plans were in place to introduce twice‑yearly staff surveys from May 2026.

A staff survey was conducted in November 2025 to understand staff views on the transition to Bupa. There were 226 responses, representing an 81% response rate. The provider told us, and submitted evidence to show, that overall feedback about the transition was positive.

Staff told us their workloads had increased as the services developed. For example, there were developments around the ‘one stop shop’ clinics within the OPD and expansion plans for the pre-assessment and the OPD team roles. However, we were told that the strong and supportive leadership within the OPD and visibility of the wider hospital managers helped staff to manage the changes. Staff felt supported to gain new skills and develop their careers.