Fairfield General Hospital

Updated 26 June 2026

Fairfield General Hospital is located in Bury, Greater Manchester and is managed by the Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust. The hospital provides a range of acute NHS services, including urgent and emergency care, medical care, surgery and outpatients.

We commenced a responsive assessment as part of our urgent and emergency care system pressures thematic review framework. Our assessment only looked at urgent and emergency care and medical care (including older people’s care) at Fairfield General Hospital. Our findings for both these service groups can be found in the services section of this report.

We cannot rate the overall location at Fairfield General Hospital as we have not assessed all the assessment service groups operated by Northern Care Alliance at this hospital.

Updated 6 July 2026

Medical care at Fairfield General Hospital is provided by the Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust.

This assessment looked at medical care (including older people’s care) at Fairfield General Hospital. We commenced a responsive assessment as part of our urgent and emergency care system pressures thematic review framework between 20 and 22 January 2026. We reviewed 33 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.

We visited medical wards across various specialities including stroke speciality wards, respiratory, general medicine, cardiology and coronary care, diabetes and endocrinology.

We spoke with people who used the service and staff, including nurses, healthcare assistants, domestic staff, students, doctors, consultants and senior managers. In addition to this we also spoke with partners and stakeholders to hear their views of the service. We observed care and treatment, inspected patient care records, and reviewed the trust’s audits and performance data.

Our overall rating for the medical care service remained the same. We rated the service as requires improvement.

We found 4 regulatory breaches relating to safe care and treatment, staffing, environment and equipment and governance.

The service did not always ensure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service did not always manage medicines and treatments safely or in a way that met people’s needs, capacity and preferences. Staff did not always follow guidance on hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment.

The service did not have enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to provide safe care and treatment. Not all staff had completed required mandatory training, including sepsis and life support training.

The service did not always take timely or effective action to address inequalities in access and outcomes, particularly in stroke rehabilitation, where the use of escalation beds reduced access to therapy and affected patient experience and outcomes.

The service did not always have effective governance arrangements, with outdated policies, incomplete audit action plans and unclear accountability. Leaders did not always act on identified risks in a timely way, and assurance and escalation processes did not consistently result in sustained improvement.

However, the service worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of people with dementia, learning disabilities, autism and sensory impairments.

The service had a shared vision and culture. Leaders were visible and engaged, most staff felt valued and able to raise concerns, and partners described open and collaborative working with system partners.

Updated 6 July 2026

Fairfield General Hospital provides a full range of urgent and emergency services for patients of all ages attending the accident and emergency department. The department is open 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. The hospital also has an urgent treatment centre (UTC) and same day emergency care (SDEC) service that support the emergency department.

We commenced a responsive assessment as part of our urgent and emergency care system pressures thematic review framework. We carried out an unannounced inspection from 20 to 22 January 2026. During the inspection, we spoke with 18 patients and relatives and looked at 30 care records. We also spoke with more than 50 staff, leaders and service partners, and reviewed policies and other documents relating to the service.

Our overall rating for urgent and emergency services remained the same. We rated the service as requires improvement.

We found 7 regulatory breaches relating to safe care and treatment, governance and staffing.

There was routine use of corridor care which risked patients’ safety, privacy and dignity and staff’s ability to provide safe care. The service did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and suitably trained staff.

The service did not always have effective processes for medicines management or treatment of sepsis. Compliance in some infection control standards was below expected standards. People could not always access care, support and treatment when they needed it. Governance processes were not always effective in managing risks and performance issues across the service. Leaders understood the key risks to the service but actions taken to address these risks had not been fully implemented or led to service improvements.

However, staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Premises and equipment were clean and well-maintained. Leaders promoted a positive work culture. Most patients were treated with dignity and respect. Most patients experienced positive outcomes following their care and treatment. However, mixed patient outcomes had been reported in some clinical audit indicators.

Updated 7 February 2020

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• The service did not make sure medical staff completed mandatory training. The design of the unit did not meet national guidance. The service did not have enough allied health professionals with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to provide the right care and treatment. The service did not manage patient safety incidents well. Staff frequently recognised and reported incidents and near misses.
• Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals worked together to benefit patients but there was limited participation in multidisciplinary working.
• Leaders did not always use systems to manage performance and risk.
• The service did not have a vision for what it wanted to achieve, and the governance arrangements were not robust. Processes were not in place to manage performance and risk. The service was not focused on the needs of the patient.

However:

• People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care promptly. Staff were caring and compassionate and relatives were involved in decision making processes.
• There were enough nursing staff to safely care for patients on the unit and mandatory training levels had been achieved. Safeguarding processes were in place and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

Updated 7 February 2020

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as outstanding because:

• Patients and families were truly respected and valued as individuals and empowered as partners in their care, practically and emotionally, by an exceptional and distinctive service. Staff consistently went the extra mile to ensure that patients received individualised care that took account of their needs and preferences in the last days and hours of their lives and that their relatives were supported practically and emotionally.
• Services were tailored to meet the needs of individual people and delivered in a way to ensure flexibility and choice. Staff actively engaged with local patient groups and communities to tailor services to meet their needs. Decisions which affected the service were made with patients and their families at the centre.
• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. 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. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Services were delivered flexibly and were accessible to people when they needed it. There was a bereavement nurse working within the local coroner’s office to provide bereavement advice and support to people who would otherwise have to actively seek this out themselves.
• Managers and staff continually engaged with religious communities to tailor services to meet their needs. Staff had worked together to carry out people’s religious and spiritual wishes after they had died such as preserving the integrity of the body and facilitating vigils or religious ceremonies.
• Leaders had an inspiring shared purpose and strived to deliver and motivate staff to succeed. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However

• The service did not have its own palliative care consultant, although staff had access to specialist palliative care advice and support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
• We did find one policy that was out of date, although this had been reviewed and was awaiting final sign off.
• Not all IT services allowed easy access to data.

Updated 12 August 2016

We judged outpatients and diagnostic imaging services as Good overall this was because

• • • • • • • Staff were confident about raising incidents and told us that they were encouraged to do so.
          • Staffing levels were appropriate to meet patient needs although increased demand on the Radiology services meant some reporting on diagnostic imaging is outsourced overnight to ensure that turnaround times for reports are within national guidelines.
        • There were appropriate protocols for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children and staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in regard to safeguarding.
      • The departments inspected were visibly clean and staff followed good practice guidance in relation to the control and prevention of infection.
  • We observed that the equipment used in the care and treatment of patient’s was clean and in good work order.
• An electronic patient record system allowed the filtering out of relevant information and facilitated information being available to different teams very quickly.
• Outpatient and diagnostic services were delivered by caring, committed and compassionate staff who treated people with dignity and respect
• Departmental managers were knowledgeable and supportive and had vision improve their services.
• Staff in outpatients and diagnostic services, demonstrated good team working (including multidisciplinary working) and were competent and well trained.

However

• Not all notes had been scanned and paper notes were still in use for some patients.

Updated 1 March 2018

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service had a good record of reporting patient safety incidents.
• The trust’s ‘open and honest’ boards displayed information about staff and safety issues for patients and visitors.
• All areas we visited were visibly clean and free from clutter.
• Medicines were managed well and patient records were securely stored and completed appropriately.
• Staff understood how to manage any safeguarding concerns and this was part of mandatory training requirements that were monitored by managers weekly.
• The trust had recruited both nursing and medical staff and staffing was identified on department risk registers. Staffing was monitored daily and any shortfalls were supplemented with bank and agency staff to ensure sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff.
• There was a site-specific major incident plan and staff were familiar with this.
• Ward managers were supportive of staff and proud of services provided.
• The trust values were displayed in public areas and there was a strategy in place that included action plans to improve services. There was a positive culture where managers valued staff.
• Risk registers were in place across the surgical departments with control measures in place. The trust collected data to monitor and drive improvement.

However

• National guidance recommends that staff in theatre receive training in advanced life support training. However; training provided was for basic life support only.
• The theatre environment was not fit for purpose and it was not clear when proposed refurbishment would take place.
• Patient information boards displayed patient details visible to others.
• Senior managers acknowledged that waiting times for certain specialities was a challenge with operations being cancelled for non-clinical reasons.
• We found that the service did not investigate complaints in a timely manner, although managers recognised this.
• The surgical safety checklist compliance figures had been supplied but we observed some gaps in the process.