The New Foscote Hospital

Updated 27 July 2026

Date of assessment: 24 March 2026.

The New Foscote Hospital is an independent hospital in Banbury and provides a range of NHS and private hospital services. This assessment looked at Surgery and Medical care services, which we rated as good. The medical care service provided was endoscopy only. The rating of Surgery and Medical care services has been combined with the ratings of the other services from the last inspection in June 2021. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all the other services at The New Foscote Hospital. The overall rating of The New Foscote Hospital remains good.

Updated 27 July 2026

Date of assessment: 24 March 2026.

The New Foscote Hospital is operated by The New Foscote Hospital Limited. The hospital is based in Banbury, Oxfordshire. The hospital was first opened in 1981 and was known as The Foscote Hospital. In 2019 the hospital was bought by a family investment fund and became known as The New Foscote Hospital. Since the purchase the hospital has been undergoing a transformation process.

This assessment focused on the medical care service, which provided endoscopy only. The service provides diagnostic imaging for people aged 16 years and over. It is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activity of diagnostic and screening procedures.

The service was previously inspected in 2021 and rated good with no breaches of the legal regulations. Our overall rating of this assessment remains good.

The service had an effective process for learning from incidents, complaints, and patient feedback. The service was completely secure and could only be accessed with key cards. Computers were password protected. The provider had a clear governance structure relating to safeguarding and a safeguarding lead. Staff responded appropriately when they recognised patient deterioration and risk. Staff completed mandatory training via a mixture of face-to-face and e-learning sessions. Staff received regular appraisals. New staff joining the trust received an induction tailored to their role. The service continuously monitored their performance through audit and national benchmarking. Staff treated people as individuals and placed patients at the centre of their care. The service analysed complaints data and grouped this into themes although they received few complaints. Leaders were visible and approachable across the organisation. The trust clearly focused on and valued equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in their workforce. The service focused on quality improvement to identify areas for development, implement change, and measure the impact of interventions, supporting continuous learning, improvement and innovation.

However, we found out of date stock items, some by over one year. The door to a housekeeping room was unlocked and easily accessible. Within the room we found hazardous chemical items, such as bleach and floor cleaner. These are covered by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations and should be risk assessed and stored safely.

Updated 27 July 2026

We carried out this assessment due to the length of time since the last inspection and conducted a comprehensive assessment of surgical services. During our assessment we found people received safe, effective and person-centred care from staff who worked well together and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and supported positive outcomes. Governance systems were effective in monitoring quality, managing risks and driving improvement. The service was particularly strong in its partnership working and community engagement. Leaders and staff worked proactively with external organisations and healthcare partners to improve access to care, reduce barriers and support joined-up services. This collaborative approach had improved people’s experiences and outcomes and demonstrated a strong commitment to meeting the needs of the local community.

Updated 24 August 2021

This service has not been rated previously. It was inspected and rated in 2016 but was then under different ownership. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. All areas within the departments were clean and had suitable furnishings. The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment mostly kept people safe. The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience. There was a system to report safety incidents and staff knew how to report incidents and near misses.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service and were visible and approachable. There was a clear leadership structure from service level to senior management level. Staff were aware of the overall vision and strategy and felt part of the vision for the hospital. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. The service had an open culture where staff could raise concerns. Leaders operated effective governance processes. Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. The service collected reliable data and analysed it. The information systems were integrated and secure. Leaders and staff engaged well with colleagues. Staff were committed to continually learning and improving services.

However:

• The service did not always follow best practices of Infection prevention and control.
• The service did not report all incidents appropriately on the hospital’s incident management system.
• The risk register for the service contained information that was not up to date.