Sulis Bath Hospital Limited Also known as Circle Bath

Updated 9 October 2025

Date of assessment: 21 January to 06 March 2025. Sulis Bath Hospital Limited provides a range of independent health hospital services. This assessment looked at surgery services in response to concerns we had about the service, which we rated as good. The rating from surgery has been combined with ratings of the other services from the last inspections. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all other services at Sulis Bath Hospital Limited. The overall location rating of Sulis Bath Hospital Limited remains good.

Updated 24 September 2025

Date of assessment: 21 January to 06 March 2025. This assessment was carried out in response to concerns we had about the service. We looked at 22 quality statements across the key questions of safe, effective and well-led.

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Leaders investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. The service worked well with people to understand and manage risks. Leaders made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff involved people in planning any changes, but did not always manage medicines well.

Effective:

Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Patients always had enough to eat and drink. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff did not always make sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

Well led:

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders worked with external stakeholders to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. Most staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. The service did not manage risk effectively despite clear systems and structures for good governance. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 24 April 2017

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, responsive to people’s needs and well-led, and outstanding in caring.

• The service had a good track record on safety. There was an open culture; staff were encouraged to report concerns and incidents. Incidents were investigated and used to identify learning.
• Risks to patients were assessed and appropriately managed. Comprehensive pre-operative assessment ensured patients’ suitability for surgery at Circle Bath.
• Departments were appropriately staffed to keep people safe.
• Staff were trained in and complied with safe systems to protect people from avoidable harm.
• People had their needs assessed and their care planned and delivered in line with evidence-based, guidance, standards and best practice, including during assessment, diagnostics and referral to other services
• Staff, including those in different teams, worked together to provide seamless and coordinated care.
• Staff were suitably qualified and experienced to undertake their roles and received regular supervision and appraisal.
• Feedback from patients and those close to them was consistently positive. The department received overwhelmingly positive feedback from patients and this was consistent with the feedback we received during our inspection. Patients we spoke with were fulsome in their praise for staff. We heard of numerous examples where staff had “gone the extra mile” to support people.
• Staff treated patients with dignity, respect and kindness during all interactions. Patients told us that staff took time to listen to them and felt supported by them.
• Patients and those close to them were involved as partners in their care. Patients told us that their conditions and treatment options were explained to them in a way they could understand.
• Staff showed compassion when people were distressed or anxious.
• Patients could access care and treatment at a time which was convenient to them. Cancellations and delays were minimal.
• Premises were accessible and comfortable.
• People’s complaints and concerns were listened to and responded to. Learning from complaints was used to improve the quality of care.
• The local leadership team was well respected, visible and accessible. Staff were inspired by and supported by a strong and cohesive leadership team.
• Staff enjoyed working at Circle Bath. Staff morale was high; they expressed pride in their service and they were optimistic for the future.
• Team work was cited by many staff as the best thing about working at Circle Bath. We saw excellent cooperative working within and between departments.
• There were effective governance arrangements. Information was regularly monitored to provide a holistic understanding of performance, including safety, quality and patient experience.
• Patients and the public were engaged and involved. Their views were captured and acted upon to improve the service.
• Staff embraced the hospital’s improvement plan and were encouraged and empowered to raise concerns and drive improvement.

However:

• There was no private space available in outpatients which could be used by, for example, breast feeding mothers or people who wished to have private conversations.
• Patient information on medical conditions and treatments was available in English only.
• The availability of chaperones to accompany patients at consultations was not publicised in departments.
• The outpatient department had not recruited to the unit lead position, which had been vacant for over 12 months. The deputy lead had taken over managerial responsibilities but had little protected time to fulfil these responsibilities.