- NHS hospital
Glenfield Hospital
Assessment report published 10 June 2026
Ratings - Surgery
Our view of the service
Glenfield Hospital Leicester is part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust which formed in 2000, with the merger of the Leicester General Hospital, Glenfield Hospital and Leicester Royal Infirmary. The trust serves 1 million residents of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and provides increasingly specialist services over a much wider area. It is a teaching hospital, working closely with partners at the University of Leicester and De Montfort University. Glenfield Hospital provides acute and tertiary hospital services for over 1 million people.
The surgical service at Glenfield Hospital Leicester is made up of 10 theatres including a hybrid theatre, a surgical enhanced care unit and 9 inpatient surgical wards. A wide range of specialist surgical services are provided including cardiac, thoracic, renal transplant, hepatobiliary, vascular and breast specialities.
We carried out an unannounced focused assessment of cardiac, thoracic, vascular and hepatobiliary specialities and services. The onsite assessment took place on 3, 4 and 9 June 2025. The assessment was carried out as we had concerns about the culture in cardiac surgery and the potential impact this had on patient safety. We assessed 33 quality statements across safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
We did not cover the full range of surgical services provided at Glenfield Hospital. The report therefore does not update the ratings for surgical services at this time, and we will return at a future date to carry out a more comprehensive inspection. The previous rating of requires improvement overall remains.
As part of our assessment, we visited 4 surgical wards, 5 theatres and the surgical enhanced care unit. We looked at 16 patient records including consent forms and safer surgery checklists. We spoke with 7 patients, 2 carers and 64 staff members. This included service leaders, managers, matrons, ward and team leaders, nurses, operating department practitioners, anaesthetists, perfusionists, consultants, doctors, healthcare assistants, therapy staff, administrative and domiciliary staff.
We found:
Specialities we assessed did not always work with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Specialties we assessed did not always work collaboratively to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Specialities we assessed did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. Staff did not make sure that all equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Specialities we assessed did not always have enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.
Specialities we assessed did not always supply appropriate and accurate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Patients were not always kept up to date about their treatment plan. Specialities we assessed did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
There was 1 speciality where more focused work was needed to improve the culture amongst a minority of staff. Specialities we assessed did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.
However, we found:
Most staff reported incidents in line with trust policy. Specialities we assessed generally had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Managers listened to local concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Staff were provided with safeguarding training specific to their role. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Specialities we assessed shared concerns quickly and appropriately. They provided continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Mandatory training and annual reviews with staff were compliant with trust standards. Specialities we assessed made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences.
People’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Patients were involved in the assessment of their needs. Staff gave people clear information about their care and treatment needed to support both their physical and mental health. Patients received co-ordinated and effective care and treatment from members of the multidisciplinary team. Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People’s views and wishes were considered when their care was planned.
People felt well-supported, cared for and treated with dignity and respect. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Specialities we assessed generally cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.
Specialities we assessed 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. They understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.
The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture of which the specialities we assessed were aligned to. 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. Specialities we assessed 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. They valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Specialities we assessed understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. Specialities we assessed focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.
We found 4 breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to safe care and treatment, environment and equipment, governance and safe staffing.
Specialities we assessed did not ensure safe care and treatment was provided in a safe way as staff did not always implement the safer surgery checklist in line with best practice. Venous thrombosis embolism assessments were not repeated in line with best practice and trust policy. The risk of infection was not always prevented and controlled within theatres. Staff did not always comply with infection, prevention and control practice. Patients who experienced long waits for surgery did not have the risk associated with their long waits routinely assessed to monitor for clinical deterioration/harm.
Specialities we assessed did not ensure the environment in theatres was clean, well maintained and safe. They did not ensure equipment in theatres was readily available and safe to use. Sepsis boxes on emergency trolleys were not always appropriately stocked or safety checked. They did not ensure all equipment was secure. Oxygen cylinders were not always securely stored. Not all ward areas had secured access.
Specialities we assessed did not always assure effective collaboration across clinical management groups in addressing issues and concerns. Risk registers were not always effective in mitigating environmental risks where it involved multiple clinical management group oversight.
Specialities we assessed did not have sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff.
We requested an action plan to address these concerns.
People's experience of this service
During our onsite assessment, we spoke with 7 patients and 2 carers. Patients and their relatives talked positively about their experience of care at this site. Most patients told us staff cared for them in a kind and considerate way. Patients felt listened to and were not afraid to ask questions. Patients told us they felt safe in the areas where they were cared for, and staff respected their rights to privacy and dignity. Patients felt staff went out of their way to make them feel comfortable and felt all staff communicated with them clearly and empathically. However, some patients expressed a wish to be better informed about what time they would go to theatre.
Patients told us they were treated with dignity and respect and received effective care and treatment. They said they were involved in key decisions relating to their treatment plans. Specialties we assessed adapted to meet the needs of patients with learning disabilities, as well as those with individual needs.