Claremont Hospital

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

The service ensured that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service worked in partnership with people to improve their services, they had a patient experience group which we observed whilst on site. The group responded to both positive and negative feedback. The service had a patient forum where they were able to discuss the findings of patient feedback and gain further understanding to make improvements. They benchmarked themselves with other hospitals in the group.

The multi-disciplinary team worked together to ensure that patients had all the preoperative screening and information they required. Care was planned with the patient to identify any individual health concerns and avoid any delays in treatment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, they worked closely with the local system to identify where they could support partners to meet healthcare demand in the area.

For our detailed findings on how the service managed care provision, integration and continuity see this section in the surgery report.

Staff provided information to patients in ways they could understand. The service had access to translation services and could produce easy read versions of information. We saw staff took the time to check patients understood information about their appointments and treatment options. We saw staff had completed training in General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and confidentiality, and that patients understood how their information was used by the service.

The service actively sought feedback from people through patient surveys. We saw posters with a QR code asking for feedback in the department, there was also a box at the entrance for feedback cards. The responses were in the main positive, and patients said staff were kind, friendly and professional.

Complaints were monitored through the heads of department meeting and governance meetings. There were 8 complaints for outpatients for the period 1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025. Compliments were displayed throughout the department on a quarterly basis.

In April 2025 outpatients had been rated joint first with another Spire hospital for patient satisfaction scoring 99%.

Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The service had a dementia strategy, a dementia lead and all eligible staff had completed dementia and learning disability/autism training.

Patients told us they received an appointment in a prompt and timely manner and did not experience long waits when they arrived for their appointment. The service monitored waiting times from referral and made sure people could access services promptly when needed.

Patients had an initial consultation to determine whether they needed surgery, followed by a pre-operative assessment. Staff told us they planned people’s care and treatment in advance, so they did not experience delays in their treatment. The physiotherapy service provided preoperative advice to patients and ensured they had the right equipment in place on discharge where required.

Staff told us they monitored and followed up any patients who did not attend their appointments and rescheduled their appointments promptly to ensure their treatment schedules were not disrupted.

The service had an inclusion and exclusion criteria and patients admitted for treatment were generally healthy or suffered from mild systemic disease and were considered to have a low risk of developing complications during treatment. People’s health needs who were assessed as too complex would be referred to the NHS for assessment. A weekly multi-disciplinary team meeting took place to discuss any higher risk patients to decide if they could access the service and mitigate any risks.

Managers told us the service had sufficient capacity to meet peoples’ needs and monitored performance around access to minimise any delays to patients care and treatment

The service had processes to identify any barriers that could disadvantage different groups of people using their service. There was access to interpretation and translation services for patients whose primary language was not English. A multi faith box with resources for different faiths was available for patients, visitors and staff members, with a room allocated daily as a quiet space.

The provider's equality and diversity policy outlined the processes for equal opportunities including how staff ensured they did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

Staff and leaders listened to information from people to work with them to meet the hospital access criteria. There was a multidisciplinary team meeting if there was a concern regarding a person's mental capacity to consent to treatment. The final decision was escalated to the director of clinical services.

Patients were supported on discharge, the outpatients service provided telephone advice and wound management for patients post operatively.

Patients were supported to make decisions about their care through informed consent. The physiotherapy team supported patients preoperatively and post operatively to enable them to regain their mobility. The team also offered a wide range of services such as acupuncture service for pain management and mobility treatments. The hand therapist was able to provide bespoke splints for patients on site.