Matrix Surgical Limited Also known as Belgrave House

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 is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People consistently described being treated with kindness, courtesy and respect by staff. Feedback from patients included multiple compliments thanking staff for their “kindness, care and good humour” and for providing “reassuring aftercare”, demonstrating consistently positive interactions and valuing of patients’ experiences.

Observations and feedback indicated that staff interactions were calm, professional and reassuring, particularly during potentially anxiety-provoking stages such as pre-operative preparation and recovery. Staff were discreet, respectful and responsive, ensuring patients received help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Patients confirmed that staff treated them well and behaved professsionally throughout their care.

Privacy and dignity were maintained throughout consultations and treatment. Confidential information was handled sensitively, and discussions took place in a discreet manner. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of confidentiality and respectful care.

People felt valued, respected and cared for. This contributed to positive experiences, reduced anxiety, and increased confidence in both the staff and the service overall.

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.

Care was tailored to individual needs and preferences. Leaders described how feedback led to adjustments in information delivery, particularly recognising that people varied in how much detail they wanted about their treatment. Staff adapted their communication style accordingly, including revising written materials such as patient information leaflets to provide both simple explanations and more detailed clinical information where requested.

Reasonable adjustments were made where required to support effective communication and understanding. This included adapting patient information and documentation following feedback, for example updating surgical brochures and consent materials to improve clarity, include missing information, and better reflect patient needs and questions. Reasonable adjustments and additional time were offered where people had communication difficulties, and patients were supported to involve family members or others in discussions to aid understanding and decision-making.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments and related matters. Patients were provided with written information, including consent forms and letters outlining treatment plans and risks, which were also shared with GPs to support continuity and understanding. There was evidence that information was reviewed and strengthened following complaints, including ensuring patients were aware of all treatment options and possible onward referral pathways.

People felt listened to and respected as individuals, improving satisfaction and engagement with care. Feedback demonstrated that patients valued clear, honest communication and the responsiveness of staff to their individual needs and preferences.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Feedback and learning demonstrated that the service recognised the importance of continually strengthening choice. Improvements identified included makingclearer that patients could access treatment through alternative pathways (such as NHS options), and actively offering the opportunity for family or friends to be involved in decision‑making discussions where desired.

The service also showed awareness of the need to tailor decision‑making support to individuals, including considering a person’s ability to process complex information and ensuring support was provided where needed. This reflected a proactive approach to upholding independence and ensuring equitable involvement in decisions.

Patient feedback further supported this, highlighting staff’s honesty, direct communication, and supportive approach, which helped people feel confident and informed throughout their care.

People felt fully involved in decisions about their care and treatment. They reported feeling informed, respected, and supported to make choices at their own pace. As a result, individuals experienced a strong sense of control, confidence, and reassurance in the decisions they made about their care. There was flexibility around appointment times for clinic and surgery and these could be adjusted to suit patient needs, preferences and schedule.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment and condition. Consent processes, pre-operative discussions and follow-up explanations demonstrated that information was communicated in a clear and supportive way, enabling patients to make informed decisions and ask questions.

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 were aware of and managed specific risk issues, including clinical and procedural risks, with care planned accordingly. For example, patient records demonstrated that recognised risk assessments and safety checks were embedded in practice, including Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment and prophylaxis, personalised post-operative care planning, and completion of consent processes tailored to identified risks.

Surgical safety checklist audit data showed consistently high compliance with key safety steps, including allergy status checks, confirmation of procedure and site, and equipment readiness, ensuring that known risks were identified and mitigated prior to intervention.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients in a timely way. Records showed that physiological observations (NEWS scores) were completed, totalled correctly and escalated, with timely medical review where required.

In practice, where risks escalated intra-operatively, staff took action to maintain patient safety. For example, in one case the procedure was paused due to unexpected clinical risk (lens instability), and the patient was referred to a different setting for continuation of care.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Leaders described a strong and consistent focus on staff wellbeing, particularly during periods of increased pressure. Staff reported feeling respected, supported and valued within their roles, and spoke positively about working for both the provider and their immediate teams. This reflected a culture where staff experience was recognised as important and actively promoted by leaders.

Support for staff wellbeing was both practical and structured. Staff had access to services to support their physical and emotional health, including occupational health provision. Leaders also took steps to recognise and celebrate staff contributions, for example through staff awards, which reinforced a sense of appreciation and morale across the team.

Leaders supported staff development alongside wellbeing. Appraisals included opportunities to discuss career progression and identify how development could be supported, helping staff feel invested in and enabled within their roles. This contributed to a positive working environment where staff felt motivated and proud of the work, they did.

Leaders recognised the link between staff experience and the quality of care, and this was reflected in how staff were supported and enabled in practice. A culture of respect, recognition and development underpinned staff wellbeing and team cohesion. As a result, staff felt supported and valued, and were better able to deliver compassionate, attentive care. Positive morale and access to wellbeing support enabled staff to remain focused on people using services, contributing to a caring and responsive service.

The service also recognised the importance of supporting staff following incidents. The SOP for managing surgical complications required timely debriefing, including immediate support for the surgeon and staff involved and consideration of the safety of subsequent patients. Staff described feeling supported following adverse events and valued opportunities to reflect, debrief and receive managerial oversight focused on learning rather than blame. This approach reduced emotional distress, supported staff wellbeing and resilience, and helped maintain a clear focus on safe, effective care for people using the service.