Optegra Birmingham Eye Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patient’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring patients were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. 

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The service made sure patient’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed patients’ needs to ensure care and treatment was appropriate and met individual requirements. Patients underwent comprehensive pre-operative assessments before treatment. Assessments considered patients’ medical history, current medications, existing health conditions and individual circumstances. Staff used a structured assessment process to identify clinical risks, communication needs, capacity concerns, mobility requirements and any additional support patients may require throughout their treatment journey.

Assessments were tailored to the individual and took account of patients’ personal circumstances, communication needs and preferences. Documentation included consideration of additional requirements and enabled staff to identify any support patients may require throughout their treatment journey.

Staff described how information gathered during consultations informed treatment planning and decision-making. During a consultation we observed, a member of staff discussed the different treatment options available to the patient and explained how these related to their individual needs and circumstances. Staff also explained why certain treatment options may not be suitable based on the clinical findings. The patient was informed that treatment options would be discussed further with the consultant before any final decisions were made. This demonstrated how clinical findings were used to support personalised care and treatment planning.

Information gathered throughout the patient pathway was reviewed and confirmed at different stages to ensure care remained appropriate and reflected patients’ current needs. During our observations, we saw staff reviewing and confirming relevant clinical information before treatment. Records were maintained electronically and were accessible to staff involved in patients’ care, supporting continuity of care and effective clinical decision-making.

The service planned and delivered patient’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service delivered care and treatment in line with evidence-based guidance and recognised best practice. Leaders told us care was delivered in accordance with relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, including NICE Quality Standard QS49: Surgical Site Infection. This was supported through infection prevention and control policies, perioperative procedures and established clinical pathways.

Staff followed standardised processes throughout the patient pathway to support the delivery of safe and effective care. Clinical pathways, pre-operative assessment processes and perioperative procedures were designed to ensure patients received treatment that reflected current evidence and best practice.

Leaders maintained oversight of compliance with evidence-based practice through audit and governance processes. This included monitoring surgical safety processes, infection prevention and control arrangements and staff compliance with relevant procedures. A Steps to Safer Surgery audit completed in June 2026 demonstrated 100% compliance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support patients. Staff made sure patients only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when patients moved between different services.

Staff worked collaboratively across professional groups to deliver coordinated care and treatment. During our inspection, we observed consultants, nurses, healthcare technicians and other clinical staff working together throughout the patient pathway. Staff described positive working relationships and told us they were able to seek advice and support from colleagues when required.

Staff shared information effectively to support continuity of care. Electronic records were accessible to relevant staff involved in patients' care, and information was reviewed and confirmed at different stages of the patient pathway. We observed staff communicating with one another throughout clinic and theatre activities to ensure patients received safe and coordinated care.

Staff told us they supported each other's learning and development. For example, staff described sharing knowledge and experience across NHS and private patient pathways to develop skills and broaden their experience of different treatments and procedures.

The service had arrangements in place to work with other services and healthcare professionals when required. Staff described established referral pathways for patients requiring specialist input and clear processes for escalation and onward referral where care was required beyond the scope of the service.

Leaders promoted multidisciplinary working through clinical governance and oversight arrangements. A Medical Advisory Committee provided a forum for consultants, managers and clinical leaders to review clinical governance matters, outcomes, incidents, complaints and developments in clinical practice. The committee also reviewed new techniques and treatments to ensure these were supported by evidence, appropriate training and governance processes before implementation.

The service supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their eye health and treatment. Patients received information throughout their care journey to help them understand their condition, treatment options and what to expect following surgery.

Patients were provided with information about maintaining their eye health and recognising symptoms which may require further advice or treatment. Staff signposted patients to appropriate services and healthcare professionals when additional support or assessment was required.

During our inspection, we observed health promotion information, posters and leaflets displayed throughout the service. Information was available in a range of formats, including larger print and different languages, to help meet the communication needs of patients. This provided patients with access to information and advice to support their health and wellbeing.

The provider also promoted patient education and awareness through a range of information resources, including information relating to eye health, treatment pathways and clinical outcomes. Staff told us they encouraged patients to ask questions and seek advice if they had concerns about their condition or recovery.

The service monitored patient’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patient themselves.

The service routinely monitored clinical outcomes to assess the effectiveness of care and treatment. Leaders reviewed outcome data, audit findings and performance information to identify areas for improvement and provide assurance regarding the quality of care delivered.

The service benchmarked its performance against recognised national standards. During 2025, Birmingham completed 2,480 procedures and achieved a zero-complication rate of 98.6%, exceeding the National Ophthalmology Database (NOD) benchmark of 98.4%.

Clinical outcomes were better than national benchmarks. Following surgery, 94.7% of patients achieved a level of vision that met or exceeded the expected outcome, compared with the National Ophthalmology Database (NOD) benchmark of 92%. The service reported no cases of serious eye infection following surgery and had a lower rate of complications during cataract surgery than the NOD benchmark (0.16% compared with 0.69%).

Leaders maintained oversight of performance through regular audit and governance processes. Outcome data, audit results and performance information were reviewed to identify trends, monitor performance and support continuous improvement.

The service participated in external reporting and benchmarking arrangements, including the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN). This enabled the service to compare performance and outcomes with other independent healthcare providers and supported transparency for patients accessing the service.

Leaders reviewed outcome data through governance processes and used benchmarking information alongside audit findings to monitor performance and support continuous improvement in the quality of care provided.

The service told patients about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff sought consent from patients in line with legislation and guidance. Consent processes were supported by comprehensive documentation which outlined the benefits, risks and alternatives to treatment. Patients were provided with information to support informed decision-making about their care and treatment. The service operated a 7-day cooling-off period, allowing patients sufficient time to consider their treatment options and ask further questions before proceeding with treatment.

The service had processes in place to assess capacity and support patients who may require additional assistance when making decisions about their care. Staff we spoke with understood how to assess patient’s capacity and described the processes they would follow if concerns were identified. Guidance was available to staff regarding patients with cognitive impairment, communication needs or those requiring support from a lasting power of attorney. Staff understood how to access interpreter services for patients who did not speak English and information could be provided in different languages where required.

Consent was treated as an ongoing process. Records demonstrated that consent was obtained prior to treatment and reconfirmed before surgery. Consent documentation included opportunities for patients to discuss concerns, ask questions and record any procedures they did not wish to undergo. Recent training data showed 95.2% compliance with Mental Capacity Act 2005 training, supporting staff to assess capacity and obtain consent in line with legislation and guidance.

Patients were offered access to a chaperone where appropriate. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to consent and demonstrated an awareness of the importance of ensuring patients understood the information provided before making decisions about their care.