HCA Healthcare UK The Christie Private Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the changed to outstanding. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently better than expected compared to similar services. People’s feedback described it as exceptional and distinctive.

We assessed 6 quality statements.

The service consistently delivered highly effective care by thoroughly assessing patients health, wellbeing and communication needs and planning treatment in line with legislation and evidence‑based standards. Care was person‑centred and teams worked seamlessly so individuals only needed to tell their story once. The service strongly supported patients to manage their health, maximise independence and live healthier lives. Outcomes were closely monitored, consistently positive and aligned with both clinical expectations and patient goals. Patients were informed of their rights around consent and staff respected these when delivering care and treatment.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff demonstrated an exceptional commitment to assessing and meeting patients’ needs. Risk assessments were completed and care plans were put in place to ensure patients received the right level of care. Assessments were holistic and covered physical health, wellbeing, and communication needs. Assessments reliably identified patients with dementia, learning disabilities or autism.

Individualised care plans were detailed and completed promptly on admission and reviewed regularly. They were holistic, reflected physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including protected characteristics and communication preferences. Staff recognised additional requirements promptly and put reasonable adjustments in place to support the needs of patients. We saw many examples of this throughout our assessment.

Any needs outside standard pathways were escalated through the alert system and discussed in MDT meetings.

In addition to the monthly auditing of risk assessments, the service had a proactive approach to monitoring assessments with real‑time oversight. The nurse in charge completed daily spot checks to review risk assessments and any gaps or omissions identified were then shared with staff.

We reviewed 6 electronic patient records, which showed that all relevant risk assessments had been completed, including those for falls, delirium, nutrition, pressure ulcers and venous thromboembolism (blood clots). Records showed that care was person-centred and patients told us they felt fully involved in their assessments and that their needs had been assessed appropriately.

Pain management was delivered to an outstanding standard. The end of life care audit was undertaken monthly and reviewed regular assessment of pain and symptom control. The service had achieved 100% in the previous 12 months.

Staff monitored and managed pain through routine assessments and pain‑related deterioration was identified promptly. For example, pain was assessed every 1–2 hours as part of intentional rounding. Scores were recorded in the electronic patient record alongside NEWS2 observations. Electronic care plans were used to guide symptom control and escalation.

Patient surveys conducted from November 2024 to November 2025 demonstrated consistently high levels of satisfaction. Inpatient services (552 responses) reported an average of 96% ‘excellent’ or 100% for both ‘excellent’ and ‘very good’ ratings for pain management.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff used a nationally recognised tool to assess hydration and nutrition needs. The nutrition and dietetics team provided support for patients to discuss their dietary needs and how to manage sickness and loss of appetite. Hydration and nutrition audit results between January and October 2025 demonstrated strong performance, with the service achieving mostly 100% compliance across all inpatient areas, including oncology, haematology, radiotherapy and pharmacy. Patients told us they consistently received meals tailored to their needs and praised the range and suitability of food options.

Patients we spoke with said their nutrition and hydration needs were met. Patients told us there was a wide range of food choices which met specialist nutrition and hydration needs.

The service worked proactively with recognised professional bodies including United Kingdom Oncology Nursing Society (UKONS), European Society For Medical Oncology (ESMO) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Leaders told us this collaboration supported continuous awareness of emerging trends, national developments, best practice standards and known gaps across cancer care. They reported that this engagement informed local decision‑making and kept the service aligned with national standards.

The service had corporate policies in place and shared clinical policies and procedures with the partner NHS trust. This meant that care pathways were in place and followed nationally recognised recommendations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.

It was evident from the care records we reviewed, the advance care planning and the MDT meeting we observed that NICE guidance and quality standards were being followed. This included ‘care of dying adults in the last days of life’, ‘care of dying adults in the last days of life’ and ‘improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer’.

The service used a systematic approach to identify patients who were likely to be approaching the end of their life. New admissions with end of life care needs were highlighted at the daily MDT meetings. Patients discussed advance care planning with the clinical specialists and care was coordinated between allied health professionals across different services. Patients and their carers also had access to support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The service made relevant referrals and signposted carers to support services in the community. This model of working followed all the quality statements for NICE ‘end of life care for adults’ .

The service regularly monitored corporate policies and procedures at monthly head of department meetings. Leaders reported that all policies were up to date, and our review of policies confirmed that every policy we checked was within its review timeframe.

The consultants and nurses at the clinic were aware of any research and trials that were taking place in the partner NHS trust and at other centres; patients could be transferred to these trials if this was most appropriate for their treatment.

All consultant oncologists at the service also practised at the partner NHS trust where clinical trials were conducted. This meant patients had their cases discussed at NHS disease group specific MDTs and could be referred to the clinical trials team for assessment if they were deemed suitable.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

Patients had access to the specialised MDTs at the NHS partner trust in addition to the MDTs within the service. This meant they had access to an exceptional level of medical expertise.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) ward meetings were held to discuss patients care in detail, including inpatients and day case patients. We observed MDT meetings that were planned effectively and well attended. For example, medical staff, nursing staff, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dietitians, clinical nurse specialists, pharmacy, discharge co-ordinator, complimentary therapist and clinical psychologist. Discussions about each patient were comprehensive and included key risks, treatments, discharge plans and included referral discussions for physiotherapy, dietitians, psychology and complimentary therapy. Patients with complex discharges were discussed including those approaching end-of-life care.

MDT meetings were scheduled three times a day to promote ongoing communication and effective coordination of care. This included morning inpatient MDT meetings for oncology and haematology, led by the nurse in charge. This meeting included overnight updates and discussions about the key clinical plans for the day. Afternoon MDT’s took place after board rounds and were led by resident doctors. Further ward rounds took place before the end of the day between the nurse in charge and resident doctors.

The service used a consultant‑led care model to promote quality of care and continuity. The resident doctors worked closely with consultants during consultant ward rounds. Additional consultant ward rounds for complex patients were undertaken by consultants and CNSs who were employed onsite by an external provider. This was in collaboration with a resident doctor.

Monthly ward operational MDT meetings took place with the facility matron and jointly led by the lead resident doctor, oncology ward manager, and haematology ward manager. Further MDT meetings between pharmacy staff and resident doctors were undertaken to review workflows and identify opportunities for quality improvement between these departments.

Monthly housekeeping assurance meetings were also implemented and attended by the head of housekeeping, matron, and ward management. Leaders told us that this focused on quality assurance standards and that the environment met the required levels of cleanliness and safety.

Leaders explained that MDT education was actively promoted within the service through monthly programmes such as ‘lunch and learn sessions’ and the resident doctor led MDT teaching programme. We saw evidence of this during our assessment and from speaking with staff.

Staff told us departments worked well together and shared examples of how they had adapted their own areas to support each other and meet patients’ needs in a timely way.

Patient feedback was very positive about how staff and teams worked together. They told us that staff had a clear understanding of their medical history and treatment options prior to their appointments. For example, one patient described how their consultant had liaised with their surgeon in advance of their appointment. Surgical options were discussed, and an immediate referral for surgery was made, which the patient said had reduced their stress and anxiety.

Staff across departments worked effectively with the discharge coordinator to plan discharges from the earliest possible stage. We saw evidence of this in MDT meetings and with patients we spoke with. One patient told us that having their medication pre‑packed and stored securely in their room meant their discharge was quicker, which had a positive impact on their experience.

Feedback from external partners was very positive about collaborative working and described staff as being consistently professional and supportive. They explained how the electronic system for advance care planning and symptom assessments were easily accessible for staff across the departments. Planned joint reviews reduced the number of medical assessments needed and minimised the duplication of information gathering.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

Patients told us they were given information and advice about their physical health and emotional wellbeing. Support was available through individual inpatient and outpatient therapeutic sessions as well as group-based programmes.

The psychology and wellbeing service offered a ‘Wellbeing Space’ with dedicated support groups to bring patients together to share their experiences. The groups provided expert‑led practical and emotional support for coping with life both during and after cancer treatment. Patient feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with many describing the support groups as having a transformative impact on their wellbeing and recovery.

Many patients described the support groups as being ‘life‑changing’, and how the support of staff and fellow members had made a significant difference to their lives. They reported a ‘renewed sense of self, increased confidence, and feeling better prepared for the future’. Other members said they gained helpful advice on pain management, diet and mental health techniques.

The service delivered men’s health seminars 3 times a year that focused on the specific challenges faced by men living with a cancer diagnosis. These sessions included expert external speakers covering topics such as the benefits of physical activity, diet and mindfulness. Patient feedback was consistently very positive and included a renewed commitment to exercise, mindfulness and improving diet.

The service also delivered an 8 week programme for women diagnosed with cancer who were coming to the end of their active treatments. Sessions were facilitated by a senior radiographer and clinical psychologist with activities focused on exercise, diet, intimacy, sleep and psychological coping. Feedback from patients showed benefits such as how to exercise safely after treatment and coping strategies for negative thoughts, sleep issues and diet concerns.

The Wellbeing Space had celebrated its ten‑year anniversary, bringing together past and current members. Staff described the event as meaningful and uplifting, and had encouraged others to join the groups due to the significant benefits reported by patients.

Staff identified early on what support patients needed and offered support to prevent deterioration. Referrals were routinely made to dietitians, psychologists, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Patient feedback data from surveys conducted between November 2024 and November 2025 demonstrated high levels of satisfaction with the support provided by these staff groups. For inpatient services (552 responses), an average of 98% rated their care as excellent or very good in this area.

Radiotherapy (82 responses) scored 100% excellent results for being provided information about support groups and 99% excellent or very good scores for being given practical advice and support around the side effects of radiotherapy.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We reviewed patient feedback data from surveys conducted between November 2024 and November 2025. For questions on overall quality of care and recommending the hospital to family and friends, radiotherapy services (82 responses) reported an average of 100% ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ ratings. In inpatient services (552 responses), the average rating was 99% ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ for these metrics.

Comprehensive monthly audits were completed across all clinical departments to assess a number of metrics including safety, quality of staff interactions with patients, safeguarding, nutrition and hydration, safe equipment and end of life care. Audit data showed a sustained high performance across the key indicators monitored. Between January 2025 and October 2025, oncology, haematology transplant unit and radiotherapy had an overall average score of 99% and had consistently met the target of 95%. Although the pharmacy department recorded some lower scores earlier in the year (89–92%), there was sustained improvement from July 2025 onwards, with performance consistently reaching 97% and above.

Radiotherapy was provided in line with World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance. The service conducted monthly audits to monitor compliance with 10 metrics in line with national guidance and best practice. Data showed that between October 2024 and September 2025, the service achieved a consistent 100%.

The service monitored chemotherapy safety standards through chemotherapy documentation audits which showed strong compliance across the service. Between October 2024 and September 2025, the haematology transplant unit achieved 100% compliance. Although oncology did not have samples available for the earlier months, audited records from April 2025 to September 2025 also demonstrated 100% compliance.

Performance in relation to outcomes was also monitored through a quarterly audit schedule. This included audits such as dieticians and physiotherapy documentation, blood transfusion, pressure ulcers and insertion of urinary catheters. We reviewed the performance dashboard showing results from December 2024 to September 2025. Performance was consistently high, with scores ranging from 93% to 100% and predominantly at 100%. Audits for venous thromboembolism (blood clots) also averaged 100% for oncology and hematology unit.

The service performed strongly against recognised patient safety and quality indicators. The service provided data from June 2024 to October 2025 that showed unplanned transfers of inpatients to other hospitals, unplanned readmissions and unplanned returns to theatre was predominantly 0% for this 17 month period.

The service shared and used data from Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN) to compare clinical outcomes and experience metrics. This network is the independent government organisation that holds information about private healthcare to improve quality. The service submitted consultant‑level data that outlined the procedures they performed, their experience and other information such as patient experience, indicative fees and contact details.

The service demonstrated compliance with established quality standards through accreditation from recognised national bodies. The service had achieved accreditation from Macmillan Quality Environment Mark (MQEM) since 2018. The most recent reassessment took place in April 2025, where the service again achieved the required standards. MQEM recognises cancer care environments which provide high‑quality, welcoming, and supportive spaces for people living with cancer.

The haematology transplant unit achieved accreditation in November 2025 with JACIE - Joint Accreditation Committee of the International Society for Cellular Therapy and the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. The service also achieved reaccreditation (January 2024) by the Myeloma Clinical Service Excellence Programme which recognises best practice and patient focused myeloma care.

Other accreditations included recognition from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), which is awarded to cancer centres that provide highly integrated oncology and palliative care services. The radiotherapy service had achieved the accreditation ISO 9001 certification, an internationally recognised standard for Quality Management Systems (QMS).

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff followed national guidelines when caring for patients who lacked capacity to make an informed decision; they understood that nursing and clinical decisions made were in the patient’s best interest in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff described the consent process for patients who had fluctuating capacity and received training in the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). Compliance for all staff groups across the medical service was 100%.

We reviewed 6 patient records and found they all had consent forms completed. However, the type of consent forms used was not always consistent; some staff completed national cancer research consent forms for SACT treatment, while others used the service’s standard chemotherapy consent form. We found evidence that capacity assessments and ‘allow a natural death’ (AaND) forms had been completed for patients who required them, and appropriate consent forms were used for those subject to DoLs.

The service completed quarterly AaND audits for assurance that treatment was aligned with the AaND plan and that patients and family were involved in decision‑making. Data from December 2024 to September 2025 showed that the service had scored 100%.

The service completed monthly audits that reviewed consent and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) compliance. The service provided audit data from November 2024 to October 2025 that showed consistently high compliance with average scores of 100% for these metrics. The monthly audits also measured how compliant staff were with the MCA (2005) and DoLs. The service also scored 100% during the same time period.