The New Victoria 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.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service responded to patients’ needs and patients who used the service were actively involved in planning and delivering their care. Patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances. Staff ensured that information was shared with other agencies so that there was a continuity of service. Relevant information was provided in a way patients could understand, and patients could provide feedback and raise concerns. Access to care was straightforward and people experienced positive outcomes. The service worked to improve inclusivity. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and responsive 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.

Staff told us their focus was on patients’ care, comfort and experience. They described being flexible in how appointments were arranged to meet individual needs, including offering extended appointments where required and scheduling appointments to fit around patients’ lifestyles.

The hospital collected feedback through patient surveys, which asked about care, cleanliness, staff and overall experience. Most patients rated the hospital service as excellent. The Outpatient Department (OPD) consultancy service was rated as 80% very good or excellent, and overall experience scores were 60% excellent and 40% good.

During our assessment, patients and relatives spoke positively about the care they received. They told us staff focused on their individual needs and preferences. Patients said staff discussed treatment options during OPD appointments and made it clear they could change their minds.

One patient told us they felt fully involved in their treatment plan and were kept informed at every stage. When we observed care, we saw OPD staff ensuring patients understood the interventions being provided and that these remained in line with their agreed treatment plans. Another patient told us they had chosen the service based on a relative’s positive experience and said they would continue their care with confidence and recommend the service to others.

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.

The service worked closely with local healthcare providers to maintain effective communication and ensure joined‑up care for patients. For example, patients receiving gender‑affirming interventions were referred for pre‑assessment and surgery through NHS pathways. Staff told us they were in regular contact with GP practices, local hospitals and commissioned NHS pathology services to support continuity of care.

OPD leaders told us they ran engagement sessions with local GPs to raise awareness of services available at the hospital. They had also worked with local schools to support health promotion activities. Leaders said they were keen to expand this work further now the hospital had been acquired by Metabolic Services Limited as part of Bupa.

The service considered the diversity and changing needs of the local population. Leaders told us there was a local older adult population and described plans to develop services that support early identification, prevention and continuity of care. This included ‘one‑stop’ clinic pathways and screening services within bowel care, breast care and musculoskeletal specialities. These approaches had the potential to improve access, reduce multiple attendances and better meet the needs of an ageing population.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Leaders and staff told us patients were given clear information about their appointments and treatment before arriving at the hospital and were offered opportunities to ask questions. We observed consultations where staff explained treatment options and how these met individual needs.

Patients we spoke with said they felt well prepared for their procedures and understood their care plans. They told us they were fully informed and given choices about their treatment. Staff provided accurate information and created opportunities for questions to be asked at different stages of care. We saw that patients and their families were kept informed about next steps, including aftercare advice.

Patients had access to written information about the hospital and its services, as well as general health information, such as leaflets from the British Heart Foundation. Staff also had access to interpreting services to support patients who required this. Although the local demographics meant there was limited need for translation and interpreting services.

As part of ongoing service development, the hospital had introduced an electronic patient record system. This aimed to improve patients’ access to their medical records, appointments and updates about their care.

The hospital supported patients to receive effective care and treatment by providing communication aids to meet individual needs. Hearing loops were available within the hospital to support patients with hearing impairments.

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.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the complaints process, knew where to find relevant policies and understood their responsibilities. They told us they encouraged patients and families to raise concerns openly and honestly, in line with the hospital’s values of providing compassionate and exceptional care. Staff said they aimed to resolve issues as soon as they were raised, as this often led to better outcomes for patients and reduced the need for formal complaints. Learning and improvements from concerns and complaints were shared through staff meetings, update messages, and hospital‑wide and OPD bulletins.

We saw clear information displayed to inform patients about delays and advising them to speak with staff if waiting times exceeded 15 minutes. Information about fees for self‑funded patients was also clearly displayed in patient areas. Patients we spoke with said the information was clear and sufficient, and that staff were available to answer any questions. They told us they felt confident to speak up if they had concerns about their care or wellbeing.

Feedback and complaints were reviewed at the monthly Integrated Governance meetings. Leaders told us they handled complaints directly and offered to meet with people face to face to resolve issues where appropriate. The OPD had received four 4 complaints in the 12 months before our assessment. We saw evidence that leaders had apologised and taken action to address concerns raised, including making improvements following a complaint about billing. Patients we spoke with during the inspection told us they had no current complaints and felt confident raising concerns directly with OPD staff if needed.

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 had an accessible layout. The main hospital entrance had electric doors and a wheelchair‑accessible route. Reception areas, main waiting areas and the Outpatient Department (OPD), including waiting and clinical areas, were all located on the ground floor with level access throughout. Reception desks in both the main reception and OPD included lowered sections to support wheelchair users. Wheelchair‑accessible toilets were available and equipped with handrails to support people with mobility needs. The hospital had an on‑site patient car park, including disabled parking bays and bicycle storage located close to the main entrance.

Clear signage was displayed throughout the hospital, including on doors, walls and corridor entrances, to help patients navigate the building. Patients told us they found the service easy to find and the OPD areas easy to navigate.

The OPD was open and staffed from 08:00 to 20:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 16:30 on Saturdays. The service provided a range of specialist clinics for people of all ages, from children to older adults. Leaders told us they had ‘one‑stop’ clinic pathways for bowel care, gynaecology, breast care and musculoskeletal services. Staff explained these pathways aimed to improve efficiency and patient experience by providing multiple interventions within a single care pathway.

Policies were in place to identify and support patients with additional needs, including people with disabilities or those requiring interpreting services. Staff told us they considered patients’ needs holistically and discussed care across teams to ensure the best options were offered. For example, bariatric equipment from inpatient wards could be accessed for OPD use when required. Pre‑assessment staff worked with scheduling teams to ensure patients with additional needs were offered longer appointment times.

Patients told us they were offered appointments promptly and were given a choice of dates and times that suited their needs, including Saturday appointments.

Over the previous 12 months, the OPD non‑attendance (DNA) rate was 3.4% out of 53,038 booked appointments. Leaders told us this low rate was due to appointments and procedures being pre‑booked, confirmed in advance and coordinated with patients. Patients were contacted prior to attendance to confirm appointment details, assess clinical readiness where required, and provide information about charges. Leaders explained that, as treatment was often pre‑authorised or paid for in advance, patients usually gave notice if they were unable to attend, allowing appointments to be rescheduled rather than recorded as DNAs.

Patients undergoing procedures under general anaesthetic were assessed through a consultant led pre‑assessment service within OPD. The hospital provided a limited number of NHS‑funded pathways; these were primarily for gender affirmation surgery patients, alongside self‑pay and insured procedures.

Managers monitored referral‑to‑treatment times and patient pathways. Waiting times, including for patients referred via NHS pathways, were tracked against national standards, and action was taken to manage and reduce waiting lists where required.

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.

Staff and patients told us the hospital’s location made it easier for people to access elective treatment locally, rather than travelling to larger facilities further away.

Staff in the Outpatient Department (OPD) and across the wider hospital promoted a culture where patients felt encouraged and empowered to share their views. There was 100% compliance with equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training, and staff had access to EDI policies to support fair and equitable care and avoid disadvantaging patients.

The hospital had introduced new IT systems to improve the patient experience. These systems aimed to provide patients with quicker and easier access to information about appointments, diagnostic results and medical records, and to support patients to book their own appointments. Staff told us this development responded to patient feedback requesting faster and more direct access to services.

Patients we spoke with told us they had positive experiences and outcomes from their treatment. For example, one patient said the interventions offered meant they were able to avoid invasive surgery, which they had wished to avoid.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.