Glenfield 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

This key question has been rated 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.

Description: We make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

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.

Patients’ care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Managers told us how they planned and organised services, so they met the changing needs of the local population. Patients and those close to them (including carers and dependants) were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so that it centred around them and their needs. Whilst on the ward, carers and families were taught how to support patient aftercare so they could continue to support patients after they had been discharged. Discharge processes were effective in helping meet individual’s needs and were carefully planned. There was a clear focus on discharge planning throughout the patients’ stay.

The trust monitored ward transfers and the data provided showed that both in-hours and out-of-hours bed moves occurred. During the inspection, some staff told us they believed that certain out-of-hours moves were unnecessary and could be disruptive for patients. However, while the dataset identified the timing and frequency of ward moves, it did not include information about the reasons for transfers, whether they were clinically necessary, or any associated impact on patient outcomes. However, some staff said it was common to move patients at out-of-hours to create additional space on a ward. Hospital data showed there was approximately 220 people a week moved out-of-hours to other wards, but the trust was unable to clarify how many of these were non-clinical transfers. A non-clinical transfer is the movement of a patient between wards or hospitals solely due to bed availability rather than a clinical need. They are to be avoided where possible, especially at night when it is most disruptive. The trust did provide us with information around corridor care and how it was being monitored, especially around those with delirium or on dementia pathways. This gave assurance that the trust was monitoring out-of-hours movements and that there are steps in place to ensure movement was minimal where possible. Patients and carers were also provided with a leaflet explaining why people may have been moved to another ward.

When people were due to move between services, all necessary staff, teams and services were involved in assessing their needs to maintain continuity of care. We observed care of a person who was admitted from another hospital to the Clinical Decisions Unit and was then transferred to the Coronary Care Unit when their circumstances changed. We observed that the notes of the person were precise, clear and had a plan in place. Therefore, the patient was safely transferred between the services.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. Appropriate-notification systems were in place to ‘flag’ patients who had specific or complex needs such as dementia. People were supported to understand their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. People received the most appropriate care and treatment for them and the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary.

The trust’s Cognitive Assessment Bundle for patients aged 65 years and over went live on the electronic patient record system on 12 February 2026. This supported early identification of delirium and cognitive impairment. This would provide useful evidence around screening and early recognition as part of the dementia/delirium work ongoing in the service. Actions underway included the development of a standard dementia documentation pack for each ward to ensure key paperwork was readily available, discussions with ward leaders to strengthen compliance with the cognitive assessment bundle and delirium recognition and environmental improvements being reviewed, including orientation aids such as visible clocks.

Description: We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

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.

Glenfield Hospital provided a highly specialised medical care service for cardiology, vascular, respiratory, and nephrology patients. Dedicated resources and staffing teams ensured that the service delivered high-quality care and treatment. Appropriate pathways were in place to transfer eligible patients from the trust other hospitals and emergency department. People received care and treatment from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were flexible and connected.

Public board papers describe the trust’s ‘One Digital’ programme, which stores a patient’s records in one place making them easier to access and identify how best to provide the most appropriate and supportive care.

People’s care and treatment was mostly delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that are co-ordinated and responsive.

Delivering and co-ordinating services considered the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care. The chaplaincy arrangements were representative of local demographics. The food provision was considered from an ethnicity perspective.

Local leaders spoke of their ambitions and plans for the Clinical Decisions Unit (CDU) to further enhance the care and treatment provided and were keen to provide the best possible environment for all patients.

Description: We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. 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 that they can understand, and which meets their communication needs. People who used the service, their family, friends, and carers were provided with information that was accessible, safe and secure and which supported their rights and choices.

People’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. These needs were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Information could be found on the trust’s website and around the wards. We saw that some of this information was available in different languages and easy to read versions. Therefore, most patients had information tailored to their individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, interpreting and translation for people who didn’t speak English as a first language and for hearing impaired people who used British Sign Language.

People who have difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. Staff told us that it is possible to send information out electronically or printed according to people’s preference.

Information about people that was collected and shared did not always meet data protection legislation requirements. People staying in the wards had their names displayed which was easy for members of the public to see. This potentially meant people could be identified if someone knew their exact names. No other information was displayed. We raised this as a trust wide issue and leaders agreed to review current practices.

We observed some cabinets with patient notes unlocked and unattended on occasion. When leaders became aware of this, they took action to rectify the matter.

People received information in a timely way that met best practice standards and was tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed, such as informing the Integrated Care Board and local authority of notifiable diseases such as tuberculosis.

Description: We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

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.

People 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. Patient satisfaction was also monitored using ‘The Friends and Family Test’ which is a national patient survey used in the NHS.

Patients, their family, friends and other carers felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. People felt that their complaint or concern would be explored thoroughly and they would receive a response in good time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. One family member, who spoke on behalf of their relative, said although it was not in the staff member’s power to resolve the issue, they were able to reassure the patient and suggest ways to make them more comfortable.

People were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. Staff said where improvements were required as a result, people had the opportunity to be involved in shaping the solutions and measuring the impact. We saw this evidence in ward meeting papers.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and staff could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. Staff knew the process for how patients and family members could be supported to raise concerns and also contact the trust’s Patient Liaison Service. Staff were proactive in responding to any issues raised.

Description: We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

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.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

Patient Feedback indicated that the service provided an inclusive environment where people felt valued regardless of their background or identity. People could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises. People could access services when they need to, without physical or digital barriers, including out-of-hours and in an emergency. Physical premises and equipment were accessible.

People were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support, whether this was from wider society, within organisational processes and culture or from individuals. Leaders used people’s feedback and their evidence to actively seek to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care. An example was the planned review of the patient pathways to ensure people’s needs were met during the winter months. People’s feedback and patient stories were discussed in the public board.

People had equal access to care, treatment and support because the provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments. Public board papers showed that there was work ongoing to support people using their services. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients for example, people with mobility issues were provided with walking aids and shower chairs. Staff planned for patients’ discharges, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators. Given the specialised nature of the hospital and focus on cardiology, respiratory, renal and vascular service, any patient presenting with these conditions to the trust’s emergency department in Leicester Royal Infirmary would be quickly transferred to Glenfield’s’ CDU.

We saw that the trust had a Learning Disability, Autism and Mental Health Steering Group to improve services for people with Mental Health and Learning Disability.

Description: We actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

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.

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights. People felt empowered by providers and staff to give their views and understand their rights. People felt that their experiences of discrimination and inequality were listened to and acted on to improve care. People said staff worked well together. One person told us “Do you know, why they do a great job here? it’s because they always talk to each other and support each other. If one is busy, the other will do it for them”. Our observations confirmed staff supporting each other and handovers were structured, ensuring information flowed effectively between clinicians, resulting in a continuity of patient care.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services, whether from wider society, organisational processes and culture or from individuals. They proactively sought ways to address these barriers to improve people’s experience, acted on information about people's experiences and outcomes and allocated resources and opportunities to achieve equity. We saw the trust wide focus on the key prevention priorities which were: smoking cessation, alcohol, obesity, childhood obesity, tuberculosis, blood borne viruses, and workforce wellbeing. There were significant types of prevention work underway across the trust, involving a wide range of departments and stakeholders.

The provider complied with their legal requirements around equality and human rights, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

Referral to treatment (RTT) times were actively monitored in the service and used to drive improvements. For example, the RTT 18-week performance for nephrology was 90% in January 2026. Each area monitored individual patients to provide assurance to address the issue of long waits and supported the recovery of the national 92% target and held Access Performance Meetings (APM) with specialities.

Description: We support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they have the capacity to do so. Where they lacked capacity, and there was nobody with a registered Lasting Power of Attorney, their families were involved in best interest decisions.

People who were approaching the end of their life were identified and plans made to support necessary care and treatment changes. This information was shared with other services and staff when required. People’s decisions and what matters to them are delivered through personalised care plans that were shared with others who may need to be informed.

The trust provided chapels and multi-faith prayer rooms across its hospital sites, including at Glenfield Hospital, which were available 24 hours a day for patients, relatives and staff. Chaplaincy services were accessible to people of all faiths, beliefs and worldviews, and support could be arranged for specific religious practices or non-religious pastoral care. This helped ensure people were supported to express their wishes, maintain their personal beliefs and receive holistic care during important life events and future care planning discussions.

Where a patient with capacity knew they did not want to be resuscitated in the event of a cardiopulmonary arrest, this was respected and recorded. Where a clinical decision had been made not to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or to withhold other treatment this was discussed with the patient and when appropriate with their family. Any such decisions involved the multidisciplinary team and were based on the individual patient's condition. When any treatment was changed or withdrawn, professionals communicated and manage this openly and sensitively so that people understood the reasons for the changes.