The New Foscote 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

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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

Staff understood the impact of patients having endoscopic procedures and how it could affect them positively or negatively. Staff worked holistically with patients to support their wellbeing, in particular following bad news.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff wrote individualised care plans for each patient to ensure they received care personal to them. They did this by completing a face-to-face assessment with each patient and ensuring patients had an opportunity to voice their needs, wishes, and concerns. Staff reviewed care plans prior to any procedure and listened to patients to note any further information.

Patients we spoke with commented that their appointment had been extended to allow in-depth discussions to alleviate worries and concerns. For example, one patient said, “I have had lots of tests – they have been very thorough and given clear advice and explaining everything and been very patient – there has been no jargon, everything has been pitched in a way that’s easy to understand.”

We scored the service as 3. 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 continuity in people’s care and treatment because the service was flexible and responsive. People did not have to wait long for an appointment. We heard about a patient who came to The New Foscote Hospital following a recent visit to a local NHS emergency department. They had been told they may have a bowel related cancer. The patient made an appointment with a consultant at The New Foscote Hospital the same day and had an endoscopy 48 hours later.

Staff coordinated patients’ care with other services well and made onward referrals where appropriate.

Staff knew what to look for if people with protected characteristics were to make a booking. All staff received mandatory training on Learning Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorders, which we saw reflected in the training matrix.

The provider site was located next to a local district general hospital. This allowed for rapid transfer in cases where patients deteriorated unexpectedly.

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

The provider’s website contained information for both patients and other professionals. It was comprehensive, accessible, and intuitive. Patients had access to information relating to several types of scans, pricing, and reviews. The website had an area for frequently asked questions and patients could contact the clinic in a variety of ways, for example, by telephone or email. It provided patients with clear and transparent information regarding costs. The website used simple language accessible to patients. It also included detailed information for visitors regarding visiting times, facilities, and travel to the location. The website clearly indicated the service had a patient complaints procedure in place and patients could complain in a variety of ways.

The service provided patients with leaflets and information at the time of their first visit and on discharge. Information was succinct and easy to understand. The most important parts were highlighted, such as what not to do following sedation. The service created their own leaflets but also used leaflets from the British Society of Gastroenterology.

Staff knew how to make notifications to external bodies as needed. They had not had the requirement to report anything to the CQC in the past year.

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

Staff knew the routes patients could take to complain and directed them to the appropriate pathway if required. Although patients could complain verbally, the service preferred them to be in writing so they had a record and could investigate and respond appropriately.

Patients accessed complaints forms on the provider’s website, or via quick response (QR) codes displayed across the service. The service accepted verbal, handwritten, or email complaints.

The governance team received patient feedback in the first instance. They logged and tracked all complaints and feedback via an electronic database. The system flagged dates, for example, when responses were due, and provided an audit trail.

The provider had a comprehensive complaint policy, which was in date. This outlined clear guidelines on timelines for handling and investigating complaints. If patients received unsatisfactory complaints responses, they could access the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS). We did not see any complaints which could not be resolved by the provider.

The service had a structured and responsive approach to managing complaints and used them to drive improvements. The governance team monitored and analysed complaints and looked for themes and trends. We heard several examples of how patient complaints or feedback led to change. For example, 2 patients wrote they could hear staff discussing patient related topics in the corridor outside patient rooms. The governance team put notices up in the corridor and talked to all staff. They wrote to the patients, apologised, and explained what processes had been put in place. Managers called it “the gift of feedback”.

Leaders shared learning from complaints at the main morning huddle. Every member of staff received feedback from any complaint via email immediately after the huddle. This ensured everyone knew about complaints received by the provider.

As part of our data request following the inspection, we asked for the number of complaints the service received during the last 12 months. We received data which indicated the provider received 6 complaints between November to December 2025, none of which related to endoscopy.

The service also listened to and acted on staff complaints. The endoscopy team had complained about the types of chairs used for staff. Managers sought advice from a physiotherapist and procured new and more comfortable chairs.

Although the provider did not have a formal patient experience group, managers told us they had a group of patient ambassadors “in the wings”. The service could access the ambassadors if they wanted specific information or feedback.

We scored the service as 3. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients did not have to wait long for an appointment. The service offered a choice of appointments and added additional clinics if needed. The provider had a booking team who dealt with bookings, cancellations or amendments. When patients requested an appointment in the endoscopy service, they received a full quotation, which included information on cancellations and discharge.

Patients could sign up to an electronic patient portal once they registered with the hospital. The portal offered access to a secure online system, which allowed patients to see their appointment information, forms, and any correspondence. If patients wanted to change or cancel their appointment, they had to call the hospital.

The endoscopy service provided same day procedures and patients did not stay overnight. Endoscopy staff monitored patients carefully after their procedure and only discharged them when they knew patients were safe to leave. Advice given to patients at the time of their assessment included the requirement to be accompanied home.

The hospital had on-site car parking facilities, including disabled spaces. Patients accessed the reception area via steps or a ramp. Until recently, the main automated entrance doors had swung outwards. Patient feedback highlighted the risk of this, for example, if they were wheelchair bound. As a result, the provider had new automatic sliding doors installed. Patients in wheelchairs could access all areas of the hospital and wheelchairs were provided for those with mobility issues. Every shower in the endoscopy patient rooms had shower chairs. The service had access to a hoist if required.

We scored the service as 3. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider completed equality impact assessments of all their policies. This was to ensure they did not discriminate against or unfairly disadvantage protected groups. Staff understood the needs of particular patient groups and assisted patients accordingly. The consultants gathered information on any disability or additional needs at the time of initial assessment and ensured staff knew about any needs in advance.

All staff received training in equality, diversity and human rights and 99% of staff had completed this.

The service accommodated patients’ needs and wishes where possible. For example, patients who needed to work around childcare could be booked at a time to suit their needs.

We scored the service as 3. People were supported to plan for important life change

Staff delivered people’s decisions and what mattered to them through personalised care plans. They created the care plans jointly with patients to ensure they captured patient’s wishes and needs.

Staff ensured they provided patients with the right and sufficient information to plan their next steps. This included referrals to other providers, which comprised of handover of treatment plans, care plans, and diagnostic information.