Cobham Day Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were kind, respectful, and supportive to patients throughout the inspection. They showed patients admitted for treatment to their bay area and gave a clear explanation of what to expect during their stay. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions, and staff took time to respond to concerns. One patient told us their care had been “perfect” and described staff as “so kind” and had “explained everything.”

Staff took steps to protect patients’ privacy and dignity. They closed curtains around each bed on the ward giving people privacy, and treated patients respectfully when moving around the unit. For example, staff covered patients appropriately when transferred from theatre to recovery. However, during the inspection we observed one occasion where a patient was asked to bring a urine sample from the toilet to the nurse’s station and was seen carrying the sample along the corridor in a plastic cup. This did not fully respect the person’s privacy and dignity. We raised this with the provider at the time of the inspection. They acknowledged the concern and confirmed they would remind staff of appropriate processes to ensure this practice did not continue.

Staff stored patient records securely in folders at the nurses’ station to maintain confidentiality and computer screens were password protected.

Staff also described the service as caring. The 2024 staff survey showed that 100% of staff said they would be happy for a friend or relative to receive treatment with the provider.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff treated patients as individuals and responded to their differing needs and preferences. For example, staff gave one anxious patient time to talk through their concerns, while another patient who preferred to rest was supported to do so without interruption. Staff adapted their approach based on what mattered to each person at the time.

A nurse explained how they made reasonable adjustments to meet a range of needs, including for patients who were neurodivergent, needle phobic or living with varying stages of dementia. We saw evidence of this in practice; for example, staff offered a patient with needle phobia topical anaesthetic cream prior to cannulation to reduce anxiety and discomfort.

All patients underwent a pre-assessment prior to treatment. This allowed staff to identify health, communication and support needs in advance and plan appropriate adjustments. For example, the service arranged interpreters where required and planned additional support for patients who needed it.

All patients we spoke with were positive about their experience, and the providers ‘Patient Satisfaction Survey’ results between April and December 2025 showed consistently high satisfaction scores of 95% to 100%. This demonstrated that patients felt the service recognised and respected their individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service provided day-case treatment. Minor procedures required a short visit, and procedures under general anaesthetic usually involved a stay of approximately six hours. While patients were in the care of the provider, staff supported them to maintain independence and make choices about their care and treatment. For example, we observed staff offered patients choices about where they waited and how they spent their time before treatment. One patient chose to remain in the lounge area for longer prior to their procedure rather than staying in their ward bay. Staff respected this preference and supported the patient accordingly.

Patients were also given clear information about their treatment and were encouraged to ask questions, helping them make informed decisions. Pre-assessments enabled staff to identify any support needs in advance, so that patients could be involved in planning their care. We saw family members were included in people’s care, when requested. This approach supported people to retain choice and control throughout their time at the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

Staff responded promptly and sensitively to people’s immediate needs. Staff provided information in the preferred formats and made additional adjustments to reduce anxiety. We observed the ward team arrange for the same nurse to support a nervous patient before and after treatment to promote continuity and build rapport, developing a positive and reassuring relationship between the nurse and patient during the morning. Following treatment, the patient told us the service had “absolutely accommodated” their needs and that they were “put at ease when anxious.”

Patient feedback we reviewed showed staff responded well when people felt nervous or distressed. One patient commented, “I was nervous about the procedure. The staff were so comforting and reassuring I didn’t need to have worries. Everybody so lovely.”

This demonstrated that staff recognised and responded to emotional and practical needs in a timely and compassionate way.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We spoke with eight staff members across clinical and non-clinical roles, all of whom spoke positively about working for the provider. Staff described opportunities for learning and development, with one commenting that the “environment is excellent for learning.” Teams had a strong rapport, and staff felt supported in their roles.

Staff had annual appraisals and said learning discussions were open and constructive. They reported the service had a culture that promoted safety and a “no-blame” approach, which helped them feel safe to raise concerns.

The provider completed an annual staff survey. The results of the 2025 survey were not yet available at the time of inspection. We reviewed the 2024 survey which showed that over 25% of staff had been with the service for more than 10 years. Comparisons with the 2023 survey showed improvement in 17 of 30 repeated questions, demonstrating increased satisfaction in many areas.

We saw a small decline in the positive responses to ‘My organisation takes positive action on health and wellbeing’. In response, the provider requested further feedback from staff to understand how wellbeing and satisfaction could be improved. For example, staff requested increased feedback on their work. The senior leadership team arranged support for line managers to have time to mentor staff. This demonstrated a commitment to listening to staff and developing strategies to support their health, development, and engagement.

The provider offered performance incentives and bonus payments. Staff could access a pension scheme, and leaders considered requests for flexible working. However, most staff we spoke with raised concerns about the provider’s sick leave policy. Although leaders were aware of these concerns, there were no clear plans to review the company sick pay policy or address the issues staff raised.