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

At the last assessment, we rated this service as Good. At this assessment, we rated this service as Good because the needs of patients were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in care planning that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and in partnership with patients, staff discussed how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff were able to access support through GDSS wellbeing and peer support team.

The service made sure staff, and patients, families and carers had access to interpreters should they require them. However, given the demographic of patients at the time of the inspection, we could not assess whether patients were aware of these services. Staff told us that they very rarely required interpreters but knew how to access the service.

Patients were given a choice of food and drinks to meet their cultural and religious preferences. The catering service adapted to the needs of the patient ensuring that any dietary requirement was considered.

We reviewed 10 patient records and care plans to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. Staff gave choices and involved individuals in their care decision making. The individual care plans included evidence that patients were consulted at every stage of their care and every step was explained. Staff used the patient passport session guidance to ensure that patients were supported throughout their surgical journey, including their post-operative care and needs to facilitate their recovery process. This demonstrated that patients were fully informed and included in planning care that met their needs.

As per Royal College guidelines private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. This meant that they could make informed choices.

All self-funding or partially funding patients were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the service to be provided, including the total amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible, this was always provided in writing prior to the commencement of services. Although the system was not always easy to navigate, staff were available to explain all options and provided system support where required.

This ensured that all costs were communicated in an open and transparent manner.

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.

There was effective continuity of care from the start of treatment through to discharge. Staff explained how discharge information was shared with patients’ GPs , community care providers, and where appropriate local NHS trusts, to ensure ongoing follow-up care.

Leaders reviewed all patient transfers or readmissions to other services, including NHS trusts or alternative provider locations. This included reviews of any surgical site infections, to identify learning and highlight good practice.

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.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health. We asked if information was available in alternative languages and were shown how required leaflets could be produced.

Information was also available on the service's website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated. The website was detailed and easy to navigate. It provided a detailed video walk through the hospital, demonstrating the pathway the patient will undertake. It also explained the various diagnostic tests and surgery as well as aftercare.

One of the patients we spoke with said everything was explained on the website and in the provided booklet and felt they could easily contact someone if they had a question.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service enabled patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients told us that the service made it easy to share feedback and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They also told us that staff were very responsive and efficient in their responses and actions. Patients were invited to be involved in the decision making about their care and were well informed about treatment plans. Patients and their relative in the Day Unit, told us that staff involved them in their care plan and answered any questions. We received similar feedback from patients and relatives in the ward, who reported that staff were very patient and took time to answer questions that they asked.

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experience of care and support, including how to raise concerns or issues. Patients, their families and carers were confident that their complaints would be responded to compassionately.

Complaints or concerns were managed in an open and transparent way with no repercussion, investigated thoroughly and patients received a response in the agreed timeframe. Within a period of 12 months (April 2025 to March 2026), there has been a total of 8 complaints both in the Alexandra Ward and Day Unit. The formal complaints we reviewed had all been fully investigated, acknowledged within 3 working days and patients responded to within 20 working days as per the timeframe set out in the policy.

If patients were unhappy with the provider’s response to their complaint, they could ask a third-party organisation to review their complaint and the response they had been provided with. For NHS patients this request for a second review would be sent to the parliamentary ombudsman. Patients were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on.

Staff told us that learning from complaints and concerns were seen as an opportunity for improvement and they could give us examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. For example, the medication preparation room became a quiet zone a medication administration error incident and conclusion from the investigation. This demonstrated how learning from an incident could be incorporated into daily practice. We saw the signage evidence at the door during the inspection.

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.

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards. Where there were large waiting lists, these were monitored and reduced over time.

Managers monitored waiting times, where this was necessary and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets.

The hospital staff managed the bed occupancy and patient flow well.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. Within a period of 12 months (April 2025-March 2026), the total number of procedure cancellation was 44, with 29 for clinical reasons and 15 for non-clinical reasons. When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and within national targets and guidance.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Staff planned patients’ discharge carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs. Staff liaised with GP’s and community services when patients had complex needs.

One NHS patient, who was living in another part of the country, told us that they were satisfied with the promptness of the hospital to respond to their needs and the liaison with their GP to ensure continuity of care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Managers and staff listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service monitored patients access and outcomes and identified potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning a delivery. There were systems and processed for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information and equity of patient’s experiences and outcomes. Patient’s passport session guidance contained information collected to ensure that patients had the right level of support throughout their surgery journey. There is also the GDSS well being and peer support team which was available for patients and offered psychological support. The impact of these services was reported on the patients feedback we reviewed and interviews during the inspection. Overall, patients we spoke to praised the care and said that they were likely to recommend the service.

Patients and their families had access to interpret services. The need for these was identified when the patient booked into the service. Staff had access to interpret services by telephone and other needs such as hearing loops were available.

Discharge arrangements optimised the outcome for all patients, including those with protected characteristics, where necessary carers and community services were involved to encourage and support a return to the patient’s pre-admission condition.

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.

Patients were supported to make informed decisions about their care and plan their future care with the active support and involvement of their family and carers should they wish to. We observed staff discussing healthier lifestyle for going home and recovery for patients who had undergone surgery in the Day Unit. They reinforced key information and provided written information and advice based on current best practice.

Patients who had undergone surgery that altered their body appearance and/or functions permanently told us that they were provided with access to ongoing support and advice for managing their condition.

We saw Staff giving discharge summary to patients to take home and where possible, GP and follow up appointments were made before discharge.