Clifton Park Hospital Limited

We assessed the diagnostics service as part of a comprehensive hospital location assessment on 30 September and 1 October 2025. This was in response to a never event within surgery. 

We spoke to eight members of staff both clinical and non-clinical. The staff were all very positive about working for the service and the hospital overall.

The department worked well with other departments. Leads had taken opportunities to develop their service to meet the needs of the local population.

The service met Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R) 2017. These govern the use of ionising radiation in medical settings to ensure patient safety and compliance with safety standards.

Overall Rating: Good  

Our view of the service

Safe:  

The service had a good learning culture and information was shared across all departments and staff. People were protected and staff understood how to safeguard people. Staff could raise concerns and were listened to. Learning was shared throughout the organisation and across the wider hospital group.

The facilities and equipment were clean, well-maintained and met the needs of people. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications, and experience. Staff  had appraisals and could access training. This enabled them to meet the ongoing requirements of their patient group.

Effective:  

Staff involved service users when assessing their needs. They reviewed assessments, taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Multidisciplinary team healthcare professionals reviewed patients to ensure they could receive their treatment. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment, which enabled them to give informed consent. 

 Caring:  

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated people as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff were welcoming and approached people in a caring way. The service supported staff health and wellbeing through ongoing activities and a wellbeing online platform. 

Responsive:  

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. The service sought feedback from people and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. 

Well-led:  

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and supportive. Staff were given opportunities to develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback through both leaders and freedom to speak up mechanisms. There was good governance in place which provided assurance on risk and the patient experience. The culture embraced new ideas and encouraged staff contribution.

We assessed the diagnostics service as part of a comprehensive hospital location assessment on 30 September and 1 October 2025. This was in response to a never event within surgery. 

We spoke to eight members of staff both clinical and non-clinical. The staff were all very positive about working for the service and the hospital overall.

The department worked well with other departments. Leads had taken opportunities to develop their service to meet the needs of the local population.

The service met Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R) 2017. These govern the use of ionising radiation in medical settings to ensure patient safety and compliance with safety standards.

Overall Rating: Good  

Our view of the service

Safe:  

The service had a good learning culture and information was shared across all departments and staff. People were protected and staff understood how to safeguard people. Staff could raise concerns and were listened to. Learning was shared throughout the organisation and across the wider hospital group.

The facilities and equipment were clean, well-maintained and met the needs of people. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications, and experience. Staff  had appraisals and could access training. This enabled them to meet the ongoing requirements of their patient group.

Effective:  

Staff involved service users when assessing their needs. They reviewed assessments, taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Multidisciplinary team healthcare professionals reviewed patients to ensure they could receive their treatment. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment, which enabled them to give informed consent. 

 Caring:  

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated people as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff were welcoming and approached people in a caring way. The service supported staff health and wellbeing through ongoing activities and a wellbeing online platform. 

Responsive:  

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. The service sought feedback from people and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. 

Well-led:  

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and supportive. Staff were given opportunities to develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback through both leaders and freedom to speak up mechanisms. There was good governance in place which provided assurance on risk and the patient experience. The culture embraced new ideas and encouraged staff contribution.

We assessed the diagnostics service as part of a comprehensive hospital location assessment on 30 September and 1 October 2025. This was in response to a never event within surgery. 

We spoke to eight members of staff both clinical and non-clinical. The staff were all very positive about working for the service and the hospital overall.

The department worked well with other departments. Leads had taken opportunities to develop their service to meet the needs of the local population.

The service met Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R) 2017. These govern the use of ionising radiation in medical settings to ensure patient safety and compliance with safety standards.

Overall Rating: Good  

Our view of the service

Safe:  

The service had a good learning culture and information was shared across all departments and staff. People were protected and staff understood how to safeguard people. Staff could raise concerns and were listened to. Learning was shared throughout the organisation and across the wider hospital group.

The facilities and equipment were clean, well-maintained and met the needs of people. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications, and experience. Staff  had appraisals and could access training. This enabled them to meet the ongoing requirements of their patient group.

Effective:  

Staff involved service users when assessing their needs. They reviewed assessments, taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Multidisciplinary team healthcare professionals reviewed patients to ensure they could receive their treatment. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment, which enabled them to give informed consent. 

 Caring:  

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated people as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff were welcoming and approached people in a caring way. The service supported staff health and wellbeing through ongoing activities and a wellbeing online platform. 

Responsive:  

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. The service sought feedback from people and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. 

Well-led:  

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and supportive. Staff were given opportunities to develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback through both leaders and freedom to speak up mechanisms. There was good governance in place which provided assurance on risk and the patient experience. The culture embraced new ideas and encouraged staff contribution.

We assessed the outpatients service as part of a comprehensive hospital location assessment on 30 September and 1 October 2025. This was in response to concerns around learning culture arising from never events in surgery.

We spoke to 21 clinical and non-clinical staff of various grades.

There were no previous breaches. The service had addressed and improved the two requirement notices from our last inspection in February 2022;

• Signage and directions to the outpatient’s department was now clear.
• The provider ensured outpatients department (OPD) staff monitored and documented their use of spill kits.

Outpatients was a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements are the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

On this assessment we found the following examples of good practice;

• All OPD staff we spoke to enjoyed working for the hospital and felt respected, appreciated and well supported by managers and teams to raise any suggestions or concerns.
• The OPD manager demonstrated excellent oversight, dedication and focus of all clinical and non-clinical governance processes, arrangements and issues within their department.
• Leads outlined some encouraging early service development examples. For example, patient participation groups and a private pain service to meet regional demand.
• We heard examples of how OPD staff and consultants met outpatient’s individual needs including tailoring communication needs, offering emotional support and reducing anxiety.

• The service had appointed an OPD clinical fellow. They helped free up consultants to see more newly referred patients. Consultants told us the fellow was a practical extra resource reflective of the NHS joint venture and positive relations.

However, we found areas for improvement;

• Key clinical governance documentation had expired and was overdue for review.
• The OPD did not formally capture reasons for ‘did not attend’ (DNA) missed appointments. The department’s DNA rate had slightly increased.

We assessed the outpatients service as part of a comprehensive hospital location assessment on 30 September and 1 October 2025. This was in response to concerns around learning culture arising from never events in surgery.

We spoke to 21 clinical and non-clinical staff of various grades.

There were no previous breaches. The service had addressed and improved the two requirement notices from our last inspection in February 2022;

• Signage and directions to the outpatient’s department was now clear.
• The provider ensured outpatients department (OPD) staff monitored and documented their use of spill kits.

Outpatients was a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements are the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

On this assessment we found the following examples of good practice;

• All OPD staff we spoke to enjoyed working for the hospital and felt respected, appreciated and well supported by managers and teams to raise any suggestions or concerns.
• The OPD manager demonstrated excellent oversight, dedication and focus of all clinical and non-clinical governance processes, arrangements and issues within their department.
• Leads outlined some encouraging early service development examples. For example, patient participation groups and a private pain service to meet regional demand.
• We heard examples of how OPD staff and consultants met outpatient’s individual needs including tailoring communication needs, offering emotional support and reducing anxiety.

• The service had appointed an OPD clinical fellow. They helped free up consultants to see more newly referred patients. Consultants told us the fellow was a practical extra resource reflective of the NHS joint venture and positive relations.

However, we found areas for improvement;

• Key clinical governance documentation had expired and was overdue for review.
• The OPD did not formally capture reasons for ‘did not attend’ (DNA) missed appointments. The department’s DNA rate had slightly increased.

We assessed the outpatients service as part of a comprehensive hospital location assessment on 30 September and 1 October 2025. This was in response to concerns around learning culture arising from never events in surgery.

We spoke to 21 clinical and non-clinical staff of various grades.

There were no previous breaches. The service had addressed and improved the two requirement notices from our last inspection in February 2022;

• Signage and directions to the outpatient’s department was now clear.
• The provider ensured outpatients department (OPD) staff monitored and documented their use of spill kits.

Outpatients was a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements are the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

On this assessment we found the following examples of good practice;

• All OPD staff we spoke to enjoyed working for the hospital and felt respected, appreciated and well supported by managers and teams to raise any suggestions or concerns.
• The OPD manager demonstrated excellent oversight, dedication and focus of all clinical and non-clinical governance processes, arrangements and issues within their department.
• Leads outlined some encouraging early service development examples. For example, patient participation groups and a private pain service to meet regional demand.
• We heard examples of how OPD staff and consultants met outpatient’s individual needs including tailoring communication needs, offering emotional support and reducing anxiety.

• The service had appointed an OPD clinical fellow. They helped free up consultants to see more newly referred patients. Consultants told us the fellow was a practical extra resource reflective of the NHS joint venture and positive relations.

However, we found areas for improvement;

• Key clinical governance documentation had expired and was overdue for review.
• The OPD did not formally capture reasons for ‘did not attend’ (DNA) missed appointments. The department’s DNA rate had slightly increased.

Clifton Park Hospital, part of Ramsay Health Care UK, underwent its last surgical assessment on 1 February 2022, achieving a good rating. The hospital provides a wide range of surgical services, including hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder replacements, cruciate ligament repairs, specialist sports injury surgery, shoulder and elbow procedures, hand surgery, mid, fore, and hind foot procedures, arthroscopies, plastic surgery, and diagnostic interventions.

In 2024, the service reported five never events, which are serious patient safety incidents that are wholly preventable under national guidance. Each incident was investigated thoroughly, resulting in recommendations that have since been implemented. The provider confirmed that monitoring of current practices was ongoing to ensure compliance and prevent recurrence.

From 30 September to 1 October 2025, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out a responsive assessment of the 34 quality statements for surgery. Inspectors found patient areas to be safe, clean, well-equipped, well-furnished, well-maintained, and fit for purpose. Staff demonstrated strong risk management practices for both patients and themselves and showed clear understanding of safeguarding procedures, working effectively with other agencies to protect patients from abuse. Medicines management was robust, with systems in place for safe prescribing, administration, recording, and storage. Patient safety incidents were managed appropriately, with learning embedded into practice.

The assessment confirmed that care was person-centred, with needs and protected equality characteristics considered throughout treatment planning. Leaders fostered a culture of continuous improvement, using outcome data and best practice to drive quality. Patient feedback indicated consistently positive experiences, with care delivered with kindness, empathy, and respect for privacy and dignity. Inspectors found evidence that patients’ wishes were considered, and choices respected, ensuring the best possible outcomes.

Access to care was equitable and tailored to individual circumstances, with services designed to meet the needs of people and communities. The hospital demonstrated an inclusive and positive culture of learning and improvement, supported by proactive leadership. Collaboration with partners ensured care was safe, integrated, person-centred, and sustainable, with a focus on reducing health inequalities.

Clifton Park Hospital, part of Ramsay Health Care UK, underwent its last surgical assessment on 1 February 2022, achieving a good rating. The hospital provides a wide range of surgical services, including hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder replacements, cruciate ligament repairs, specialist sports injury surgery, shoulder and elbow procedures, hand surgery, mid, fore, and hind foot procedures, arthroscopies, plastic surgery, and diagnostic interventions.

In 2024, the service reported five never events, which are serious patient safety incidents that are wholly preventable under national guidance. Each incident was investigated thoroughly, resulting in recommendations that have since been implemented. The provider confirmed that monitoring of current practices was ongoing to ensure compliance and prevent recurrence.

From 30 September to 1 October 2025, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out a responsive assessment of the 34 quality statements for surgery. Inspectors found patient areas to be safe, clean, well-equipped, well-furnished, well-maintained, and fit for purpose. Staff demonstrated strong risk management practices for both patients and themselves and showed clear understanding of safeguarding procedures, working effectively with other agencies to protect patients from abuse. Medicines management was robust, with systems in place for safe prescribing, administration, recording, and storage. Patient safety incidents were managed appropriately, with learning embedded into practice.

The assessment confirmed that care was person-centred, with needs and protected equality characteristics considered throughout treatment planning. Leaders fostered a culture of continuous improvement, using outcome data and best practice to drive quality. Patient feedback indicated consistently positive experiences, with care delivered with kindness, empathy, and respect for privacy and dignity. Inspectors found evidence that patients’ wishes were considered, and choices respected, ensuring the best possible outcomes.

Access to care was equitable and tailored to individual circumstances, with services designed to meet the needs of people and communities. The hospital demonstrated an inclusive and positive culture of learning and improvement, supported by proactive leadership. Collaboration with partners ensured care was safe, integrated, person-centred, and sustainable, with a focus on reducing health inequalities.

Clifton Park Hospital, part of Ramsay Health Care UK, underwent its last surgical assessment on 1 February 2022, achieving a good rating. The hospital provides a wide range of surgical services, including hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder replacements, cruciate ligament repairs, specialist sports injury surgery, shoulder and elbow procedures, hand surgery, mid, fore, and hind foot procedures, arthroscopies, plastic surgery, and diagnostic interventions.

In 2024, the service reported five never events, which are serious patient safety incidents that are wholly preventable under national guidance. Each incident was investigated thoroughly, resulting in recommendations that have since been implemented. The provider confirmed that monitoring of current practices was ongoing to ensure compliance and prevent recurrence.

From 30 September to 1 October 2025, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out a responsive assessment of the 34 quality statements for surgery. Inspectors found patient areas to be safe, clean, well-equipped, well-furnished, well-maintained, and fit for purpose. Staff demonstrated strong risk management practices for both patients and themselves and showed clear understanding of safeguarding procedures, working effectively with other agencies to protect patients from abuse. Medicines management was robust, with systems in place for safe prescribing, administration, recording, and storage. Patient safety incidents were managed appropriately, with learning embedded into practice.

The assessment confirmed that care was person-centred, with needs and protected equality characteristics considered throughout treatment planning. Leaders fostered a culture of continuous improvement, using outcome data and best practice to drive quality. Patient feedback indicated consistently positive experiences, with care delivered with kindness, empathy, and respect for privacy and dignity. Inspectors found evidence that patients’ wishes were considered, and choices respected, ensuring the best possible outcomes.

Access to care was equitable and tailored to individual circumstances, with services designed to meet the needs of people and communities. The hospital demonstrated an inclusive and positive culture of learning and improvement, supported by proactive leadership. Collaboration with partners ensured care was safe, integrated, person-centred, and sustainable, with a focus on reducing health inequalities.