Nuffield Health Bristol Hospital - The Chesterfield

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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways which 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. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Care was planned effectively, and staff took patients’ individual needs and preferences into account when arranging appointments. Patients were actively involved in arranging their surgery dates and were asked about times that suited their personal circumstances. Where clinically appropriate, patients were able to delay treatment to a time that worked best for them. Patients received text reminders for upcoming appointments, helping to support attendance and giving sufficient notice for cancellations when necessary.

Patients told us they were involved in discussions about their treatment and that staff explained clearly what would happen next. A patient said they felt involved in the decision making process and commented that staff were so thorough.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 services were flexible and joined up. Patients were referred into the service through clear and established pathways. Patients could self-refer, be referred by GPs or by direct referrals from the NHS. Patients were seen by the same consultant throughout their care journey. Patients were supported by staff before and after surgery.

Patient’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. Staff ensured that patients who did not attend their appointments were contacted to arrange an alternative date. The service had up to date policies and procedures for managing patients who did not attend, supporting a consistent and safe approach.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way they could understand. Information was communicated in a way which met patients communication needs.

Patients reported that communication from staff was clear, comprehensive, and highly valued. Feedback gathered through the patient forum highlighted that procedures and aftercare were explained in detail, with staff allowing sufficient time for patients to understand the information and ask questions.

Patients were provided with information leaflets prior to surgery and given the opportunity to ask any questions in their outpatient appointment. Patients were positive about their care. One patient told us that they had “very thorough explanations,” and another said “plenty” of information was provided. Staff ensured patients were prepared for surgery and recovery via the pre-optimisation programme.

Patients were given clear, upfront information about fees. Costs were explained during telephone bookings, followed by written confirmation sent by post, and were reiterated again at outpatient appointments. This meant patients had multiple opportunities to review and consider the charges before proceeding with treatment. Patients who did not attend their appointments remained liable for the associated fees.

There was a range of information available to patients for their medical condition, some provided by the service and others by individual consultants. The provider had a website where patients could access relevant information.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. We saw information could be provided in different languages and there were processes to use should a person using services require translation services.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services and patients’ rights.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.

We observed several outpatient appointments during which patients were given the opportunity to ask questions. Consultants provided clear explanations about proposed treatments, available options, and associated risks and benefits. Where relevant, they also discussed any costs for patients choosing to access private treatment.

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. Patients were encouraged to share feedback verbally, and feedback forms were available on vehicles.

Complaints and compliments were logged and managed through an electronic management system. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, there had been 3 formal complaints. All of which were appropriately investigated, resolved, and used to identify learning.

Clear and up-to-date complaints and feedback policies outlined how the service responded to feedback. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and learning was shared. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. Patients could escalate unresolved complaints to an external organisation, such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for NHS-funded care, or to an independent sector complaints service. Information about these escalation routes was clearly available.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients could access the service through several routes, including GP referral, private medical insurance, self-pay or through their NHS hospital. The hospital provided services for private and NHS patients. Patients were mostly booked chronologically but the service prioritised those with urgent needs and waiting times were short for those eligible to use the service.

Access to the service was appropriate for patients assessed as medically suitable. Facilities included disabled toilets, full wheelchair accessibility and lifts.

After treatment support was in place, including physiotherapy and wound care follow-up appointments after surgery. During outpatient consultations, we observed consultants reassuring patients that they could contact them directly if they had any concerns following their procedure.

Patient feedback regarding access to the service was positive and highlighted the efficiency of the service. Feedback from patient surveys mentioned efficient appointments, smooth admissions and discharge. A patient said “The whole process was seamless” and another described the service as a “Prompt, efficient, courteous service”.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion, which formed part of their mandatory bullying and harassment training. The training was supported by the organisation’s equality diversity and inclusion policy, which outlined its commitment to fostering a fair, inclusive and equitable workplace.

The provider completed equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Protected characteristics are defined in the Equality Act 2010, this includes: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race and ethnicity, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

The provider participated in Patient-Led Assessment of the Care Environment, which is a review of the care environment from patients and staff. In 2025 the hospital scored higher than the national and provider average for dementia and disability care.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Patients were supported to make decisions about their care through informed consent. Patients were given sufficient time to ask questions about their treatment and the options available to help them plan their care. Patients were encouraged to contact the service if they had any questions or concerns.