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.

We saw staff placed patients at the centre of their care and treatment and worked in partnership with them when planning and delivering care. For example, a patient asked to arrive later than usual for surgery due to childcare arrangements. Staff accommodated this request and adjusted the schedule. This showed flexible, person-centred care planning.

Staff gave patients clear information at each stage of their care to help them understand their treatment and make informed choices. For example, consultants met with every patient before surgery to explain the procedure, risks and expected outcomes. The service also sent patients an electronic link before surgery, which included a video of the procedure and detailed information about the treatment and recovery, supporting a more personalised approach for patients.

During pre-operative assessments, nurses asked patients about their individual needs and preferences for care and treatment. Staff used this information to plan care that reflected each person’s circumstances. For example, one patient told a nurse they did not like noise. Staff accommodated this by placing the patient in a quiet room. This showed staff listened to patients and adjusted care to meet their needs, supporting a person-centred approach.

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.

The hospital was easy to access, as it was located near to a train station and had on-site parking. The car park had disabled parking spaces. The premises were on multiple levels, but had a lift installed for those that needed it. The premises had wheelchair-accessible entrances and toilets. This supported equitable access for people with reduced mobility and helped remove physical barriers to care.

The service worked closely with other healthcare providers to support joined-up care and continuity for patients through maintaining regular communication with external partners. For example, senior managers attended medical advisory committee (MAC) meetings, sharing updates on safety and governance and supporting joint decision-making. Senior leaders worked with local integrated care boards (ICB) to plan services and meet the needs of the population. A general practitioner (GP) liaison officer was employed by the service to engage with local practices to share information and referral pathways, helping GPs make timely and appropriate referrals. The hospital also worked with a local NHS trust to provide scanning services, screening programmes and planned surgery, and hosted NHS clinicians for ultrasound services. These measures promoted integrated working, improved access to services and supported timely, coordinated care across providers. Staff described positive relationships with external professionals and effective communication to support continuity of care.

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 service had an accessible information standard (AIS) policy and met the standard by identifying, recording and meeting patients’ communication needs throughout their care. This means people with a disability or sensory loss received information in a way they could understand. Staff completed yearly training on how to ask about and record communication needs.

Staff asked patients about their information and communication needs during pre-assessment. They recorded these in the electronic patient record using a structured format and clearly flagged them so all relevant staff could see them. Staff shared this information with clinical and administrative teams to support safe and coordinated care.

The service provided different information for various aspects of patient care. For example, they had a post-operative and general anaesthetic advice sheet which was detailed and helpful. The service ensured patients received this information in ways they could understand by providing information in alternative formats such as large print, email or verbal communication, and offering interpreting and translation services. Staff also used flexible communication methods, including telephone, text and email, and involved carers or advocates where appropriate.

The provider monitored compliance to AIS through audits to ensure patients’ needs were consistently met.

The service had information governance systems in place to keep patient information safe. The organisation had data protection and information technology (IT) security policies, which formed part of mandatory staff training. The service stored patient records securely and protected these by passwords. They shared information with patients or other providers securely.

The provider’s website included a welcoming section for visitors, with clear information about the hospital and visiting times.

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.

The service followed a complaints policy that set out how it managed concerns and kept patients informed about the process. Complaints were acknowledged within three working days and aimed to be resolved within 20 days. In the last 12 months, two complaints were escalated to level 2. Level 2 involves a formal investigation by a senior manager to review the complaint in detail, identify what went wrong and agree any actions needed to prevent recurrence.

The senior team reviewed complaints. We saw evidence of investigations, identified learning, and sharing amongst teams. The service kept patients informed about their complaint throughout the process and provided feedback on the investigation, learning outcomes identified and actions implemented.

The service made it easy for people to give feedback, raise concerns and be involved in their care. Staff provided feedback cards with a QR code in the main waiting area and displayed complaints information in reception. Patients could also submit concerns through an online form on the provider’s website. Monthly patient surveys consistently demonstrate above 98% patient satisfaction.

Where needed, patients could escalate complaints to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service, an independent body that reviews complaints about private healthcare when patients are not satisfied with the provider’s response. One complaint had been escalated to this service.

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.

The service made sure people could access care, support and treatment when they needed it. A dedicated bookings team responded promptly to NHS and private referrals and contacted patients directly to arrange appointments.

Staff identified people’s additional needs at first contact and recorded these on the patient’s record, including any required reasonable adjustments. For example, staff allowed a later arrival time for patients travelling long distances. The service provided suitable rooms to meet patients’ individual needs. For example, there was lift access to all floors and wheelchair accessible rooms.

The service had an equality, diversity and inclusion policy. Staff completed mandatory equality, diversity and human rights training, with 99% compliance.

The service ensured there was adequate medical cover at all times. A resident doctor was on site 24 hours a day, so they could attend the ward quickly in an emergency.

The service followed a patient discharge policy, which set clear criteria for safe transfer home or to another healthcare provider.

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.

Staff told us managers promoted an open culture where people could share their views about the service. Managers encouraged staff to give feedback through regular rolling staff surveys and used this feedback to make improvements. For example, staff said they wanted more training opportunities. In response, the service developed a programme of study days and workshops to support staff development and improve satisfaction.

The service gave patients a range of clear and accessible ways to share their views. Patients could give feedback through the provider’s website, QR codes, the Friends and Family Test, patient satisfaction surveys, verbal feedback to staff, and online reviews. Patients could also raise concerns, complaints and compliments, including through independent routes such as the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service.

The service showed how it acted on feedback through ‘you said, we did’ information and posters. For example, patients reported discomfort and not enough seating in reception areas. In response, the service replaced seating with more comfortable options and increased capacity to reduce overcrowding. This showed the service used feedback to make improvements and support consistent experiences for all.

The provider carried out equality impact assessments on policies and procedures to reduce the risk of disadvantage for vulnerable people and those with protected characteristics. Staff completed training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights to support fair and inclusive care.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.