Matrix Surgical Limited Also known as Belgrave House

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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered.

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

The service made 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.

Care was consistently shaped around individual needs and preferences, with examples showing staff adapting communication and support to the person rather than following a standardised approach. Feedback highlighted how staff used kindness, humour and reassurance to respond to both clinical and non-clinical needs, helping people feel at ease and supported throughout their care. Patients valued the honesty and directness of communication, and the time taken to explain procedures in a way that was meaningful to them, demonstrating a personalised approach to interactions and care delivery.

Patients were encouraged to ask questions and raise concerns, and staff responded in a supportive and timely way. Where needed, patients were supported to access independent advocacy or to involve relatives or carers in discussions to ensure their voice was heard, particularly if there were concerns about capacity or understanding complex information. Learning from complaints also demonstrated a focus on patient involvement, including recognising the importance of offering additional support for decision-making and clearly evidencing patient choice.

People experienced care that was tailored to their individual circumstances and felt supported to make informed choices. Feedback reflected that patients felt reassured, listened to and involved, with staff taking time to ensure care and decisions were aligned with what mattered to them.

The service made 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.

Care was consistently shaped around individual needs and preferences, with examples showing staff adapting communication and support to the person rather than following a standardised approach. Feedback highlighted how staff used kindness, humour and reassurance to respond to both clinical and non-clinical needs, helping people feel at ease and supported throughout their care. Patients valued the honesty and directness of communication, and the time taken to explain procedures in a way that was meaningful to them, demonstrating a personalised approach to interactions and care delivery.

Patients were encouraged to ask questions and raise concerns, and staff responded in a supportive and timely way. Where needed, patients were supported to access independent advocacy or to involve relatives or carers in discussions to ensure their voice was heard, particularly if there were concerns about capacity or understanding complex information. Learning from complaints also demonstrated a focus on patient involvement, including recognising the importance of offering additional support for decision-making and clearly evidencing patient choice.

People experienced care that was tailored to their individual circumstances and felt supported to make informed choices. Feedback reflected that patients felt reassured, listened to and involved, with staff taking time to ensure care and decisions were aligned with what mattered to them.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information processes had been reviewed and improved in response to feedback, including updates to patient-facing materials such as the cataract journey booklet and development of simplified information leaflets. Staff ensured people understood their care, treatment and follow-up, with improvements made to templates and documentation to support consistent communication.

The service demonstrated that staff ensured patients could access clear, comprehensive information about their treatment options, local services, patient rights and how to raise concerns or complaints. Information was embedded within patient documentation and supporting materials, and updates (such as adding payment information to brochures and reviewing consent forms and leaflets) showed ongoing commitment to transparency and informed decision-making.

Information was provided in different formats, including written materials such as patient information leaflets and personalised “journey” booklets, and staff adapted their approach depending on individual needs. Information was provided in formats tailored to the needs of the patient group, including the use of simplified leaflets and ongoing review of patient information materials to improve accessibility and relevance. The service showed awareness of the Accessible Information Standard by adapting materials and communication approaches to improve patient understanding.

Staff actively involved carers and relatives in care planning and consent discussions. Patient records showed staff recorded these discussions and showed families had received updates regarding patient progress when needed.

There was evidence of plans to provide patient information and leaflets in formats and languages suitable for patients attending the service, alongside broader improvements to written materials.

Improved access to clear, accessible and well-governed information supported patients to feel more confident, informed and involved in decisions about their care. Strengthened documentation, better-quality patient materials and secure information systems contributed to safer care, increased transparency and improved patient experience.

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.

People were encouraged to provide feedback through informal conversations, structured feedback opportunities and ongoing engagement with staff and leaders. Leaders described an open and inclusive culture where feedback from people using the service, relatives and external stakeholders was routinely discussed in weekly meetings and used to inform service development and decision-making. Improvements made as a result of feedback were visible. For example, patient feedback led to changes in the surgical information brochure, including clearer information about cancellation policies, more detailed explanations of intraocular lens options and the use of personalised imagery to better reflect the service and staff team. These changes followed a structured process whereby feedback was reviewed, draft improvements were developed, and further feedback was sought from patients, staff and external clinicians before implementation, demonstrating a strong commitment to co-production and continuous improvement. As a result, people felt that their views mattered and led to meaningful change, with feedback directly influencing how information was presented and how services were delivered.

There was also evidence of patient involvement being actively monitored, with feedback described as “very reassuring and positive” and achieving “5 stars”, demonstrating that people were supported to share their experiences and that these were visible within governance processes.

There were effective systems which enabled patients to raise concerns or complaints, and the culture of the service encouraged openness and transparency. Leaders described feedback, including concerns and complaints, as an important source of learning and insight, and actively promoted an environment where people felt comfortable to speak up. Governance processes demonstrated that concerns and incidents were taken seriously, investigated and used to drive improvement.

Leaders described how patient feedback highlighted differing preferences for the level and type of information provided. Feedback was actively encouraged through multiple routes, including written cards, letters and formal complaints processes, and was logged, reviewed and used to improve practice. For example, feedback led to updates of patient information leaflets and consent forms to better explain risks, treatment options (including NHS alternatives) and the potential for onward referral where complications arose.

Learning from concerns, complaints and incidents was embedded into practice. For example, following incidents, the service strengthened medicines management processes through additional checks, developed standard operating procedures to support staff when complications arise, and improved patient information to support informed consent and expectation management. Feedback themes included the need for clearer and more detailed patient information, improved communication about treatment and risks, and opportunities to strengthen safety processes. These themes were addressed through tangible actions such as revising patient literature, enhancing consent documentation and formalising clinical pathways, ensuring that learning translated into improvements that benefitted patients. Surgical safety checklist audits consistently demonstrated confirmation of sterility of equipment, antibiotic checks, and completion of swab, instrument and needle counts, supporting adherence to aseptic technique.

Staff understood how to handle complaints and concerns and were supported to do so within a positive and non-hierarchical culture. The service promoted openness, with leaders emphasising that all staff, regardless of role, were encouraged to share feedback and contribute to improvement. This culture helped ensure that patients who raised concerns were protected from discrimination or negative consequences, as raising concerns was normalised and valued. Staff also received feedback on the outcomes of investigations through governance and action tracking processes, enabling them to understand learning and adapt their practice accordingly.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems supported equitable access to the service. The provider had established processes to ensure patients could be referred on for further assessment or treatment where required. For example, in the event of a clinical complication during surgery, patients were referred to a tertiary centre, such as a local NHS eye clinic, and arrangements were made to support timely access, including transport where needed.

The service took steps to ensure continuity of care and effective communication across services. Clinicians dictated letters on the day of surgery to referring clinicians and other relevant professionals, and copies were also provided to patients. This supported joined-up care and ensured patients and external healthcare providers had access to relevant clinical information.

Staff described how the service worked to build strong links with community professionals, including GPs and optometrists, to support patient access to appropriate care. The service provided an advice and guidance function for community optometrists and delivered continuing professional development sessions, which supported timely decision-making and referrals.

The provider demonstrated a person-centred approach to access and individual needs. For example, where patients required onward referral or same-day assessment, staff ensured patients had the necessary support to attend follow-up appointments, including arranging transport and facilitating contact with family or carers if required.

Policies were available to support equality, diversity and access to services. The provider maintained an equality and diversity policy and safeguarding policies, which set out expectations for inclusive care and protecting vulnerable people.

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 within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which people felt empowered to give their views. Clinical governance meeting minutes evidenced regular review of patient feedback, including positive feedback captured through online platforms, and discussion of this at governance level.

The provider had systems and policies relevant to equality and protecting people from disadvantage. The policy register confirmed the presence of an Equality and Diversity Policy, alongside safeguarding policies and a Mental Capacity Act and DoLS policy, which support consideration of vulnerable groups and protected characteristics.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care, treatment and future needs by providing clear, tailored information and creating an environment where patients felt empowered to ask questions and express their preferences. This included supporting patients to understand their options and the potential outcomes of treatment, enabling them to participate meaningfully in decision-making about their care. Where required, discussions about future planning, including escalation of care, were approached sensitively and in line with patients’ wishes, values and best interests.

Care planning was personalised and reflected the individual needs, wishes and feelings of each patient. Staff took the time to understand patients’ expectations and concerns, and this was used to shape care pathways, information provided and clinical decision-making.