Midland Metropolitan University Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement that was based on meeting the needs of people who used services and wider communities. We checked those leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, integrated, person-centred and sustainable, and to reduce inequalities.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had a clear vision and values. Leaders led by example and checked practice against the values. The trust’s values were ambition, respect and compassion. Surgery services promoted these values.

There were posters displayed with the trust vision, values and corporate objectives identified for staff and patients to see.

There were copies of the trust’s annual 2025-2026 available for all staff to access through the intranet and with some copies in ward areas.

Leaders ensured any risks to delivering the strategy were understood and had an action plan to address them. They checked and reviewed progress against delivery of the strategy.

Surgeons told us the culture had improved, and morale was high. They told us the team ethos had been nurtured, and everyone aspired to be the best at what they did. Training and teaching were part of the culture at the trust.

Theatre staff told us the environment they worked in was excellent and the facilities and equipment to do their job were good. The support from managers within theatres was highlighted as being good and staff generally felt proud to be part of the team.

Almost all staff told us they felt respected and valued by their colleagues and the leadership team within the trust. There was a strong sense of teamwork, which encouraged candour, openness, and honesty.

We were told that staff had attended human factors training as part of the initiative to improve working relationships and the culture within the service. However, we do not have the compliance of this training.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. They embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Managers and senior leaders had the right skills to perform their roles effectively. The leaders reported a positive working relationship with each other and were dedicated to their role and responsibilities. They understood the division’s performance, the challenges faced, and the actions needed to address those challenges. We saw leaders were enthusiastic in their approach to improving the service and they shared the same vision with all staff.

Staff told us leaders in the surgery services, regularly made themselves available and visited wards and theatres frequently.

Nursing staff said they saw the matron on the wards and would approach them with concerns. During our assessment, we saw this in action.

Leaders were visible and available. They led by example, modelling inclusive behaviours, and nurtured open and co-operative relationships. Leaders took account of their staff’s specific needs. For example, managers intervened when staff were struggling. Managers explored contributing factors to difficulties and arranged support when needed.

Managers looked at options for flexible working and helped staff as they received feedback from their work.

Leadership was sustained through suitable recruitment and succession planning. Leaders at all levels were knowledgeable about issues and priorities for the quality of services and could access support and development in their role.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up, and their voice would be heard.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff culture of speaking up was strong. Staff raised concerns and were supported without fear of consequences.

Staff felt managers had been more responsive and supportive over the last year, to help support staff with the recent move to the new site.

Staff and leaders actively promoted staff empowerment to drive improvement. Staff encouraged each other to raise concerns and promote the value of doing so. Staff were confident that their voices would be heard.

Leaders were open to feedback. When concerns were raised, leaders investigated sensitively and confidentially, and lessons were shared and acted on.

Freedom to speak up was well established at MMUH, there was a policy, structure, leadership and governance in place. We observed from speaking with the leadership team for the surgical directorate that, the trust clearly recognised that speaking up is critical for patient safety, staff wellbeing and organisational learning.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. Leaders worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Diversity and inclusion were valued in in the workforce. Leaders supported work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for staff. The service recruitment policy showed that equality and diversity was valued in the recruitment process. Managers completed workforce race equality standard data collection monthly. Staff came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and there was an inclusive culture.

Staff said they felt like part of a family and were recognised for their contribution by both their managers and their peers.

Leaders acted to continually review and improve the culture of the organisation in the context of equality, diversity, and inclusion. Leaders prevented and addressed bullying and harassment at all levels.

Leaders made reasonable adjustments to support disabled staff to carry out their roles well. Managers took account of their staff’s neurodiversity needs and supported staff when needed.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Staff used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. Staff acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

There were structures, processes and systems of accountability to support the delivery of good quality and sustainable services.

The quality strategy was available to staff across all areas of surgery services and managers understood the priorities outlined within it. Staff had recognised the need to improve in some areas and told us improvements had been seen across their areas.

There were monthly clinical governance and quality committee meetings, which included representatives from the surgery, theatres and anaesthetics directorates.

Minutes from divisional governance meetings reported on risks, incidents, complaints and performance against national and local assessments. Meetings were well attended by members from all areas within the division.

The service maintained a divisional risk register, which defined the severity and likelihood of risks. The leadership team reviewed the risk register monthly and severe risks were escalated to the trust board, when necessary, through the corporate risk register. Risks were discussed and agreed at the divisional governance meetings before a risk was put on the register.

Managers and ward staff could describe the risks associated with their areas and we were told information was shared through regular safety huddles and staff meetings. The ward managers would email the staff with updates from staff meetings.

Risks were owned by senior staff and those we reviewed were managed effectively.

The clinical governance meeting oversaw the development of the organisation’s clinical quality strategy. Managers used information from the analysis of adverse incidents, complaints and clinical data through audits to find risks and make needed improvements. This data was presented in a quality and safety report through the quality and safety committee.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff attended department meetings monthly to ensure they received information needed for their role and responsibility. These meetings were held both in person and online to aid flexible working. Meeting minutes from different departments supported the governance structures and messaging further up the organisation. Managers accounted for the actions, behaviours, and performance of staff during these meetings.

Leaders had effective plans for business continuity in case of emergency or natural disasters, such as adverse weather events. Staff were confident about these arrangements and knew how to begin them. The plan outlined suitable plans for the sustainability of the business if external events affected the running of the hospital.

We saw during the assessment that governance structures within the surgical directorate were robust, with clear lines of accountability, effective oversight of risks and performance, with strong mechanisms to ensure continuous learning and improvement.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service understood its duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. Staff shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Leaders understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other organisations so that services worked well for people. Leaders shared information and learning with partners for improvement. Leaders recognised their need to work with their neighbouring NHS trusts and integrated care systems.

Leaders were open and transparent, and they worked well with relevant external stakeholders.

The service gathered feedback from staff through discussions and scheduled meetings which were minuted and available for those that could not attend. Along with staff meetings, the service used the daily safety huddles, held in all areas including wards and theatres, as the main method to share important messages.

Patients were given the opportunity to provide feedback about their care, and we saw patient feedback questionnaires that had been completed by patients. The trust had a patient experience panel which met to discuss trust policies, plans and developments.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Staff encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. Staff actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

There was evidence of improved culture across the service and there was strong leadership. Divisional leaders and ward managers acted to make improvements in the running of surgery services. They had regular meetings where learning was discussed.

An innovative treatment for enlarged prostates was now being offered to NHS patients in Sandwell and West Birmingham for the first time with improved recovery times and long-term benefits. 

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate, or HoLEP, is a minimally invasive procedure performed under general anaesthetic and involves using a laser to remove parts of the prostate.  This was now being performed by urologists, at the Midland Metropolitan University Hospital (MMUH). 

Patients who undergo HoLEP would spend less time recovering in hospital and would need to wear a catheter for a shorter amount of time than those who undergo a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). 

Surgeons at MMUH had successfully performed a robotic-TAMIS surgery, the first robotic colorectal surgery of its kind to be performed in Birmingham and the Black Country. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is a technique to remove polyps and early-stage cancers from the rectum.  It removes potentially cancerous tissue and decreases the chances of patients requiring major surgery or permanent stomas in the future. 

MMUH had carried out the first robotic-assisted high intensity theatre (HIT) list in their region, which is as an innovative way to reduce the number of patients waiting for treatment.  Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust carried out the high intensity theatre list, in September 2025, for patients waiting for hernia and gallbladder surgery.  Of the 8 patients operated on, 5 underwent robotic-assisted surgery, which was more than double the average number of robotic surgeries that are usually performed in a day. 

We also saw evidence of staff collaboration and awards through social media.