Spire Washington Hospital

Updated 15 April 2026

We carried out the unannounced visit to the hospital on 14 October 2025.

We reviewed this service following concerns raised about surgical practice and because there had been no inspection since 2020.

Updated 4 September 2025

Spire Washington Hospital is an independent hospital located in Tyne and Wear. Spire Healthcare Limited operates this service. The hospital opened in 1988. Patients are self-funded, insurance funded or funded by the NHS through contractual agreements to carry out NHS work. The operating theatres were in use 6 days a week. The hospital has 23 inpatient beds, a 12 bay day case unit and 3 operating theatres. The service averages 750 procedures per month through theatres.

We carried out the unannounced visit to the hospital on 14 October 2025.

We reviewed this service following concerns raised and because there had been no inspection since 2020.

Updated 8 May 2020

We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive and well led.

We do not rate effective for diagnostic imaging.

The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

The service controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They kept equipment and the premises visibly clean. The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. Staff managed clinical waste well.

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people and the communities served. It also worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care.

Leaders understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff.

Updated 8 May 2020

We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive and well led.

We do not rate effective for outpatients.

The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

The service controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They kept equipment and the premises visibly clean. The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. Staff managed clinical waste well.

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people and the communities served. It also worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care.

Leaders understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff.

Updated 8 May 2020

Spire Washington provides medical termination of pregnancy up to 16 weeks gestation and surgical termination of pregnancy up to 19 weeks gestation.

The service provides a vasectomy service.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, responsive and well led.

We rated safe as good, because the service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. 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 collected safety information and used it to improve the service.

Training was up-to-date. Staff were aware of their responsibilities is respect of safeguarding. Staff complied with best practice regarding cleanliness and infection control, and the environment was appropriate for the service. Risks were assessed and managed appropriately. Nursing and medical staff numbers were sufficient and appropriate to meet the needs of patients in their care. Medicines were stored and prescribed safely. Medical records were comprehensive and clear. There was a process for reporting incidents, staff understood when and how to use it, and there was a process for cascading lessons learned and actions to be taken to front-line staff.

We rated effective as good, because 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, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.

There were processes for implementing and monitoring the use of evidence-based guidelines and standards to meet patients’ care needs. Patient outcomes were monitored. Pain relief was prescribed pre and post-procedure, and women’s pain levels were assessed following both medical and surgical terminations. Staff were competent in general nursing practice, and additional, informal training in caring for women undergoing termination of pregnancy was provided by appropriate consultant staff. Informed consent was obtained in all cases, and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005

We had insufficient evidence to rate ‘caring’ within this service.

It was evident that staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their procedure. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.

There were no women attending clinics or theatres for this service during our inspection. We were therefore unable to observe the way patients were treated by staff. However, staff described to us how they treated women with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. They told us how they explained the different methods of termination and options available to women attending the service. Should a woman need time to make a decision, staff told us how they would support her.

Post-termination counselling was offered to all women using the service.

We rated responsive as good, because the service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. Women did not have to wait too long for treatment.

The service was responsive to the needs of women. Pre and post-procedure checks and tests were carried out at the hospital, and waiting times were consistently within guidelines set by the Department of Health and Social Care. Interpreting and counselling services were available to all women using the service, and information and advice were available to women at all stages of their episode of care. Foetal remains were disposed of sensitively, and choice was available. There were appropriate systems for managing complaints should they arise.

Leaders ran services well, using reliable information systems, and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. All staff were committed to improving services continually.

There was strong leadership of the service. Quality care and patient experience were regarded as the responsibilities of all staff members, and staff felt proud of the service they provided. Clinical governance and risks were managed well. Staff felt supported to carry out their roles and were confident to raise concerns with managers.