• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

First Trust Hospital

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Durton Lane, Broughton, Preston, Lancashire, PR3 5LD (01772) 860884

Provided and run by:
Anaster Limited

Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at First Trust Hospital. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 19 February 2020

First Trust Hospital is operated by Anaster Limited. The hospital opened in April 2005. It is a private hospital in Preston, Lancashire. The hospital accepts self-funding patients for a range of cosmetic operations – for example, breast augmentation and rhinoplasty.

At the time of the inspection, a new manager had recently been appointed and was registered as the registered manager with the CQC in November 2018.

Overall inspection

Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2020

First Trust Hospital is operated by Anaster Limited. The hospital has 14 bedrooms, nine of which are en-suite.

The hospital provides cosmetic surgery including breast augmentation, rhinoplasty (nose correction surgery) and lipoplasty (removal of fat through a cannula) to adults. The provider did not see anyone under 18.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 November 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so, we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

  • The service did not always control infection risk well. There was no set criteria that determined which patient was screened for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus.

  • Staff did not always complete and update risk assessments for each patient and removed or minimised risks.

  • The emergency resuscitation box was out of date and medicines were not handled or stored in line with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency guidance.

  • The service did not follow best practice when completing the World Health Organisation surgical safety checklist.

  • Staff did not always keep detailed records of patients’ care and treatment, for example we found incomplete records

  • We found no evidence that staff advised or referred patients to lead healthier lives.

  • Information systems were not always reliable – for example, World Health Organisation checklist audits were based on document audits and not observational audits.


  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had received training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

  • Staff provided appropriate 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. Patients were supported to make decisions about their care and had access to useful information. All records we reviewed showed patients were given a 14-day cooling off period. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, and key services were available seven days a week.

  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. We saw friendly interactions between patients and staff. Staff respected all the patients’ privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs. They provided emotional support to patients. We saw staff reassuring anxious patients who were waiting for surgery.

  • The service planned care to meet the needs of the patients. Staff took account of patients’ individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)


Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2020

Surgery was the only activity at the hospital.

We rated this service as requires improvement because both the safe and well-led domains were rated as requires improvement. We found effective, caring, and responsive to be good. The service used bank and agency to staff the ward and theatres.