SpaMedica Poole

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 who used services were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it centred around them and their needs. Appointment bookings were managed centrally for the location to ensure a consistent approach and to provide patients with the flexibility to choose the most convenient location for their needs.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support. The provider had a national sight support team to support patients regain their independence. The service had referred 21 patients to the Eye Care Support Pathway in the 12 months prior to our assessment, ensuring patients could access support, including low vision services, emotional support, one-to-one assistance, local charities and counselling services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service provided care and treatment to patients that considered the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. The staff actively involved themselves in charity work within the community.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. The service communicated pre- and post-surgery with community optometrists and patients GPs to ensure continuity of care.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients and relatives were supported with a dedicated area on the providers website that advised family members and loved ones of patients on how they could support them. This included resources for information, support, and advise on how to choose the right provider for their care. The site advised family and loved ones on precautions regarding driving for patients but also offered free transport for patients who needed it. The website had a detailed video walk through of the hospital, demonstrating the pathway the patient will undertake. It also explained the various diagnostic tests and surgery as well as aftercare. This meant families were better informed to support patients with their treatment and to make decisions about their care.

Most patients said that communication prior to attendance was very good. They had received emails and text reminders of their upcoming appointment. Patient information and leaflets were displayed in large noticeboards throughout the service, these included information on common eye conditions, cataract surgery, privacy notice and how to raise a complaint. Leaflets were available in large print, braille and different languages, when required although nothing was displayed to state this. During our visit printed pre-assessment information leaflets were being updated and were not available. Patients were informed that a copy would be emailed, however a copy could be printed if required. We observed patients being provided with written information following their surgery.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Patients, relatives, and carers knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns and could do so in a range of accessible ways. The service had information leaflets available in the waiting room for patients detailing how to make a complaint, this guided patients through each step of the process including what information to contain in their complaint. The provider website also contained information about how to make a complaint. Information about taking a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for patients receiving NHS care was also available on the website.

Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. In the 12 months prior to our inspection, the service had received 14 complaints. Complaints were investigated in line with the service’s complaints policy, and patients were provided with explanations and apologies where required. Responses were issued within the timescales set out in the policy. We reviewed evidence relating to 2 complaints where responses had been delayed due to staff availability. In both cases, patients were kept informed and received update letters explaining the reason for the delay and the revised timescales for a response.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured patients could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them. Patients were referred to SpaMedica by their opticians or by their GP. A central bookings team called each patient to offer them a choice of appointment date. They were sent confirmation letters and rang or text patients with a reminder prior to their appointment.

People were supported to access the service through a range of measures designed to reduce barriers and meet individual needs. Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. Free parking was available, and the provider offered a complimentary door-to-door transport service for eligible patients. This reduced barriers to treatment for patients who may struggle with mobility or who live alone and would not be able to travel following treatment. The premises was accessible, with wheelchair access at entrance and exit points, accessible slopes, adapted toilet facilities and lift access to the first floor. Wheelchairs were available onsite. There was a quiet room on each floor that could be used for patients who did not want to sit in the main waiting areas.

Staff assessed patients’ needs in relation to language, hearing, sight, and mobility in advance of their attendance. Staff provided examples of how they could support people to access the service and adjust or make accommodations to help with their experience. People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. There were translation services available and patient journey picture leaflets to support patients.

The service was transparent with patients about their outcomes. Quality accounts including patient outcomes were published on the provider website for all patients to see. The provider had developed an ‘Ask, Listen, do’ workplan for 2026/27 focused on reviewing reasonable adjustments, accessible information, and the needs of people with additional needs. The aim was to ensure people received care that was tailored to their individual needs and enabled the best possible outcomes.

Patients could expect care, treatment and support to be delivered in a timely and accessible way. NHS patients received treatment within an average of 14.1 weeks, which was better than the NHS 18-week referral-to-treatment standard. Although the cancellation rate in June 2026 was 28.79%, this was largely attributable to changes in referral-to-treatment waiting time requirements introduced by the Integrated Care Board (ICB), including a minimum waiting period of 14 weeks. These changes were outside the service’s control.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff and leaders considered information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and looked at ways to improve this. The provider recognised that untreated eye conditions disproportionately affected older people, people living in deprived communities, ethnic minority groups, and those with disabilities. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had policies to support the effective delivery of the equality and human rights legislation. They had mandatory training for staff which included equality, diversity and human rights. This ensured all staff have the right skills to support patients.

Patients were encouraged to provide feedback on the service. Patients were positive about the care and treatment they had received.

The provider used equality impact assessment tools to assess policies to identify and mitigate the risk of inadvertently disadvantaging people with protected characteristics or other individual needs. Leaders considered the potential impact of policies on different groups of people and used the findings to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients said the information they received was clear and accurate and provided in a way they could understand. They were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan for the future. Patients had personalised care and treatment plans to suit their needs.

Staff worked effectively together as a multidisciplinary team throughout the patient journey to ensure patients were fully informed and supported in their care in line with national guidance.