SpaMedica Southampton

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at making 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 understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. Staff communicated with patients so that they understood their care and treatment, including finding effective ways to communicate with patients with communication difficulties.

Leaders spoke about their role in removing barriers to care by ensuring they could support all patients. There was a sight support service which offered practical or emotional support to blind people managed by sight support officers. Staff underwent mandatory training in a range of patient needs including sensory impairment & deaf awareness. The service was fully accessible to patients with limited mobility or in a wheelchair.

Bookings for the service were managed centrally by the provider, this ensured patients could attend the service that was best suited to their needs and location. Patients received the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. Patients were in control of planning their care and support. They highlighted to the service in advance whether they needed mobility support.

The service offered a free door-to-door transport service for those who needed it. There was a specific criterion which was that the person needed to be able to get onto the vehicle independently and included space for a carer or relative to accompany them if needed. There was also a local taxi service available, and staff arranged a taxi for patients if required free of charge. The service also provided a free transport service for patients with pick-up and drop-off from mainland ferry terminals. This reduced barriers to treatment for any patients but particularly those who may struggle with mobility or who live alone. This also helped reduce the financial burden patients may have when accessing healthcare.

The service monitored patients’ pain using a score between 1 and 4 when receiving or recovering from treatment. Staff gave patients advice on how to alleviate pain. If a patient’s pain score was recorded as high, this would automatically alert leaders, and the patient would receive a courtesy call the following day to see if they required additional support.

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 service also supported other regions by providing treatment to people who lived further away so they would have treatment faster.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. The staff communicated with the community optometrists and patients GP’s both pre- and post-surgery to ensure there was continuity of care.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed 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 could get information and advice that was accurate, up to date in a way they could understand, and which met their communication needs. There were leaflets, including complaints leaflets, in several different languages and display signs in fonts that were larger for those with poor eyesight. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) is a mandatory NHS requirement in England ensuring people with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss receive information they can understand (e.g., braille, large print, email, BSL) and necessary communication support.

The provider website had patient story videos that discussed the impact of treatment on their lives. These covered areas such as surgical experience, reassurance, and patient feedback. All videos had subtitles to support patients with hearing loss.

They provided face-to-face interpreters or telephone interpreters where patients required, including British Sign Language. There were ‘spell it out’ sign language posters to assist staff with British sign language.

There were large infographic boards throughout the hospital that displayed what would happen during the patient journey. These could also be provided in leaflets to support patients with a learning disability or who struggle to read. There was also a sign in the main waiting and outpatient’s areas advising patients when the next available surgical date at the service was for new patients.

There was a display that showed the names and photographs of all staff, their role and the area they worked in. This helped familiarise patients with all staff in the service.

There were notice boards in the waiting areas to provide patients with patient focused information. These included glaucoma, dementia support and general eye health.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. We saw staff updating a patients partner on their time to surgery and how they were doing. The service had standard operating procedures to keep staff informed of the correct procedures and to ensure consistency.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Electronic records were stored securely within password protected systems, access to records was monitored centrally to ensure staff were complying with policy regarding access. Paper records were kept in supervised areas where unauthorised access could not occur. Historical records were stored in a secure area which required and access pass. Once these were no longer required at the service, they were transported to centralised secure storage to comply with retention of medical records legislation.

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 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. All patients we spoke to were happy with their care but knew how to complain if they were not. The complaints procedure was displayed in the waiting room for patients to read. We saw that there were forms on raising concerns in the main waiting area and in the outpatients waiting room. Information on how to make a complaint was also available at the service and on SpaMedica website. The complaint procedure outlined the stages of the complaint process.

We reviewed complaints data for the service and saw the service had received 7 complaints in the 12 months before our inspection. Of these complaints 6 had been acknowledged and responded to in line with the service policies,1 had been acknowledged but a letter of response had been sent 1 day out of the 30-day response target.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received. There were QR code leaflets and posters in the reception area and patients were asked to fill these in to provide feedback about the service. QR code stands for Quick Response Code, a type of barcode that can store various types of information and be scanned by smartphones. This included information on how patients could raise concerns. Leaders told us in the first instance they would always aim to speak to patients directly on the day to support rapid response and resolution to any concerns. They were also sent a feedback form online to complete. Sight support officers assisted patients who needed help with filling in forms.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at ensuring 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 sent texts to patients with a reminder 2 days prior to their appointment. Patients told us it was easy to rearrange appointments if they needed to.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible and timely. Care was delivered in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements. Managers monitored waiting times and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets. NHS Patients were treated within an average of 5 weeks, which was better than the NHS 18-week referral to treatment time. At the time of our assessment the next availability of their surgical procedure was within 4-7 weeks. There was a provider level target of offering surgery within 7 weeks. This also supported patients from other regions to attend so they had treatment quicker if the waiting times at this service were shorter.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. Patients requiring reasonable adjustments were supported with wheelchair access at entrance and exit points. There were accessible slopes and handrails throughout the service. We saw there were accessible toilet facilities with moving and handling aids. These were also designed to ensure bariatric patients could use them without restriction.

The service provided treatment for patients who were at higher risk of surgical complications, such as posterior capsular rupture (PCR). The service mitigated the risks of complication by running dedicated complex surgical lists. Surgeons and theatre teams with experience operating on high-risk patients performed the surgery.

Staff assessed patients’ needs in relation to language, hearing, sight, and mobility in advance of their attendance. Staff understood and applied a policy on meeting the information and communication needs of patients with a disability or sensory loss. The hospital had information in large print, and a hearing loop was available to assist patients wearing a hearing aid. The staff ensured there were no communication barriers by providing interpreters and leaflets in different languages, and formats to suit all levels of comprehension. This included a pictorial easy read version of patient journeys to support patients with a learning disability or autism.

Patients could access the services when they needed to, without physical or digital barriers. The service was open 8am until 6pm Monday to Saturday. Managers told us currently there was not the demand for evening appointments as the service had only recently opened, but if there was, they would provide this. There was an emergency support line 24 hours a day 7 days a week. When patients required emergency treatment, they would be booked to reattend the service the same day.

We reviewed staffing data and saw there was appropriate medical cover at all times to maintain patient safety. There were community optometrists registered with the service who completed accreditation scheme sessions training them in what to look for in post-operative patients. This was of benefit to patients as they could be seen in the community close to where they lived. This also meant the service was able to see more patients as some patients attended their community optometrists for post-operative checks rather than returning to the service.

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.

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 are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and looked at ways to improve this. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service provider had identified a need to further support patients attending SpaMedica Portsmouth from the Isle of Wight due to increased travel times and financial implications. In response to this the provider had recently opened a satellite centre on the Isle of Wight to support these patients. The satellite was overseen by leaders at SpaMedica Portsmouth. This service meant patients who lived on the Isle of Wight could access outpatient appointments closer to home, reducing travel time and costs to these patients. Leaders told us that patients had welcomed this and spoke positively about the impact it made in accessing care.

At provider level the ‘no exclusions’ working group had also looked at the staff they employed, and they had realised they had no partially sighted staff. They intended to reach out into this community to offer recruitment opportunities.

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

Patients 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 based on their personal hobbies and lifestyle.

Staff worked well together as an effective multidisciplinary team throughout the patient journey from the initial referral to the pre-operative assessment and throughout the patient’s surgery. There was input from optometrists, surgeons, and nurses, to ensure patients were fully informed and supported in their care in line with national guidance.