University of Southampton Auditory Implant Service Also known as South of England Cochlear Implant Centre

We spoke with one patient, four members of staff and the new director of the Auditory Implant Service. We followed the patient through two different consultations with health professionals. They told us 'the service is first class and well run. I often e-mail in with questions or queries and the response is pretty quick'. They added 'the only problem I had was with the hospital when I was expecting to see the anaesthetist. However, when I contacted the centre they sorted it out for me straight away.' Patients were regularly asked for their opinions about the service and there were systems in place to ensure they received a prompt response and appropriate treatment and care.

The patient we spoke with told us they were very well informed before and after their implant. We were shown the documentation patients were provided with. This was detailed, set out clearly and in a format they could understand. We saw the records of patients using the service in which people's needs were clearly identified and the care provided was in support of their individual needs.

Appropriate guidance was being followed which protected patients from the risk of infection. The areas we saw in the clinic were clean and tidy. Patients were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who had been recruited and selected following the appropriate checks.

The provider had a range of systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service. We saw evidence that information from these sources was used to plan developments and improvements in care.

People told us that they thought the staff were well trained, approachable and supportive. We saw training records that showed that staff had access to regular training, supervision and appraisal. This ensured that the staff were supported to provide care and treatment.

We saw the records of people using the service in which people's needs were clearly identified and the care provided was in support of people's individual needs.

The provider had a range of systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service. We saw evidence that information from these sources was used to plan developments and improvements in care.