Practice Plus Group Hospital - Barlborough

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

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were central to how care was planned and delivered. We checked that patients’ health and care needs were understood and that they were involved in planning care that responded to those needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways that took account of their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good because people’s needs were met through effective organisation, coordination and delivery of care. The service planned care in response to individual needs, supported equitable access, managed demand and waiting times, and worked with other organisations to support continuity of care. People were able to give feedback, raise concerns and make complaints, and leaders used this information to improve how services were delivered.

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 3. The service made usually sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

The service ensured patients were at the centre of their care and treatment, and staff adapted support in response to each person’s changing needs and preferences. Staff involved patients directly in conversations about their care. During the ward round, we observed the multidisciplinary team speak with the patient, helping to ensure people influenced decisions and were active participants in planning their treatment.

Staff responded flexibly when patients required additional support. Leaders told us that patients who might need adjustments were identified before admission so that communication, environmental or cultural needs could be accommodated. Staff were trained to recognise and respond to additional needs. The service had 100% compliance with the Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism (Tier 1), and 97% compliance with Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training. We also saw certificates confirming Level 1 British Sign Language (BSL) training for two staff members. This training supported staff to welcome and communicate with people who use BSL when attending the service and was not intended for clinical interpretation. This supported staff to adjust their approach when working with people who had communication or cognitive needs.

The service adapted care pathways to reflect each person’s procedure and level of need. We reviewed patient records and saw that patients were allocated to the correct surgical pathway, supporting safe, appropriate and personalised treatment planning.

Discharge planning was personalised and timed to each patient’s readiness. The discharge and rehabilitation coordinator provided patients with information about available support options and community services. This helped patients understand their choices and agree the most appropriate next steps in their recovery.

We scored the service a 3. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service planned and provided care in ways that met the needs of local people and the communities it served. The service offered a free patient transport scheme for privately funded patients undergoing hip or knee replacement surgery who lived within a 50‑mile radius of the hospital. This helped patients attend their planned procedures even when they may have faced difficulties travelling.

The service worked with others in the wider system and with local organisations to plan care. Staff liaised with local authorities to arrange social care support for people who needed it. This supported safe and coordinated discharge planning, particularly for people who required ongoing care at home.

The service had systems to identify and support people who needed additional help or specialist intervention, such as patients who required cardiology input prior to surgery. Staff assessed people during pre‑operative checks to identify anyone who may need extra support. Leaders and managers reviewed lists of incoming patients at weekly meetings so additional input could be arranged before admission.

We scored the service as 3. The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients received clear, accessible information to help them understand their care, treatment and surgery. The service provided patients with procedure‑specific information booklets, which explained what to expect before and after surgery. These supported people to prepare for their admission, understand their recovery, and make informed decisions about their care.

Leaders told us that patient leaflets were available in the most used languages. Staff also arranged professional interpreters or telephone interpretation for people who needed help understanding information about their treatment.

People could access further information online. Details about the service, including treatment information, were available on the organisation’s website.

The service had an accessible information policy that guided staff in meeting people’s communication needs. It described how staff should identify and record people’s preferred communication methods and ensure information was provided in a format they could understand, in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

We scored the service a 3. The service generally made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients could provide feedback in different ways. These included a feedback form on the organisation’s website. There were face‑to‑face conversations during ward rounds. Staff used electronic patient surveys at discharge. A feedback terminal was available in the main reception. Comment cards were available on the ward. Patients could also speak directly with the patient experience team. We also observed that Friends and Family Test (FFT) results were displayed on the ward. FFT data for January 2026 showed that an average of 96.9% of people reported an overall good experience of the service.

Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about their treatment plans. Staff discussed procedures, risks and aftercare with people and provided written information to support shared decision‑making.

The service took complaints and concerns seriously. Patients, their families and carers could be confident that concerns would be listened to and acted upon. We saw a “You said, we did” board displayed on the ward, which demonstrated how feedback and complaints had been used to make improvements.

Leaders used complaints as opportunities for learning and improvement. We reviewed 28 complaints received during the past year. One complaint related to a person who experienced a post‑operative complication and was readmitted to an NHS hospital the day after discharge. The person raised concerns repeating information on their relative’s NHS admission due to incomplete documentation. An incident report was completed, and leaders developed an action plan to improve communication and documentation. Training for staff, sourced by the head of nursing, was scheduled for delivery in February 2026.

People knew how to escalate concerns if they were not satisfied with the service’s response. Information on how to escalate complaints to external organisations was available on the organisation’s website. This included details for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for NHS patients and the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service for privately funded patients.

We scored the service as 4. The service ensured patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Leaders monitored waiting times and managed demand effectively. The service managed NHS patients through a single waiting list, while private patients were managed separately. This meant patients were treated in order of total waiting time, including those transferred from NHS trusts who had been waiting a long time. The national expected referral to treatment time for NHS patients in the UK is 18 weeks for elective surgery. Where patients were over this length of time, leaders held monthly reviews to see patients more quickly. Waiting list data were also reviewed weekly and shared with integrated care boards to provide assurance against national targets. The service also monitored contractual requirements introduced by some integrated care boards from April 2025, including minimum waiting periods, to ensure bookings aligned with agreed commissioning arrangements.

Across all specialties, the hospital’s average referral‑to‑treatment time for NHS patients in February 2026 was 19.1 weeks, which was slightly above the national standard of 18 weeks. Shorter treatment pathways were seen in some services, including ophthalmology and orthopaedics. Managers reviewed referral‑to‑treatment performance regularly and shared this information monthly with integrated care boards and musculoskeletal services. This provided assurance that waiting times were actively monitored and that actions were taken to manage demand and support people to progress through their treatment pathway as promptly as possible.

Arrangements were in place to support patients who were not yet ready for surgery. Patients who required optimisation before surgery, such as weight management, were placed on an active monitoring list. This list was overseen by a dedicated member of the administration team, who maintained regular contact with people to monitor progress and arrange appointments when appropriate. Managers monitored how long patients remained on active monitoring to ensure they were not disadvantaged or overlooked once they became fit for surgery.

The service took steps to engage with the local community to support equitable access to information and services. Leaders described how consultants delivered talks to community groups and attended local events. This helped the service reach people who may not routinely access hospital services, increase awareness of available care, and gather feedback from a wider range of the local population to help inform service improvement.

Cancellations were minimised and managed appropriately. Managers worked to keep cancellations to a minimum. When appointments or operations were cancelled at short notice, staff ensured these were rearranged promptly and within national guidance and agreed timescales.

We scored the service as 3. Staff and leaders 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 patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities and used this information to inform service planning and delivery. Leaders reviewed available demographic information, including age, ethnicity, gender and socio‑economic indicators, to identify any disparities in access, experience or outcomes. Where potential inequalities were identified, leaders described how targeted actions were taken to support equitable access and care. This included making reasonable adjustments, tailoring patient engagement approaches and adapting care pathways where required. The service also completed audits against the Accessible Information Standard to ensure patients’ communication and information needs were identified and met.

There were systems and processes to gather feedback and understand equity in patients’ experiences and outcomes. Feedback was collected through multiple channels, including electronic patient surveys issued at discharge, face‑to‑face conversations during ward rounds, feedback terminals in reception, comment cards on the wards and direct engagement with the patient experience team. Leaders used this information, alongside audit findings, to understand whether patients experienced fair and equitable care and to inform service improvement.

Clear acceptance criteria were in place for patients undergoing surgery. All patients were assessed against established clinical and operational requirements prior to acceptance for treatment. This helped ensure decisions about access were based on individual need and safety and reduced the risk of inequitable decision‑making.

Patients who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreting services and told us these were used to support communication, understanding and involvement in care when required.

We scored the service as 3. Patients were usually 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 choices about their care and to plan for their future care, including involving family members or carers where they wished. We observed ward rounds where staff encouraged patients to actively participate in discussions about their treatment and discharge planning. Patients were given opportunities to ask questions and to share their preferences.

Staff understood the purpose and use of Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ResPECT) forms and how these supported personalised planning for future care and treatment. Staff told us they recognised ReSPECT forms as a clinical tool to record patient’s wishes, priorities and agreed treatment recommendations, including in the event of a medical emergency. A ReSPECT form records care preference, including wishes for no attempted resuscitation and emergency treatment.