Chartwell Hospital

Updated 6 May 2022

Chartwell Private Hospital opened in 2007 and was previously known as Leigh Medical Centre before changing hands in 2010 to the provider Chartwell Private Hospital and Diagnostics Limited.

Chartwell Private Hospital is an independently run Diagnostic and Treatment Centre.

The Hospital offers

• Outpatient consulting rooms with phlebotomy facilities on the ground floor
• An endoscopy unit covering diagnostic scopes of all types, including colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy.
• A diagnostics suite is situated in the basement comprising:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computerised Tomography (CT) scanning, Ultrasound Scanning, and X-ray. At the time of our inspection the service was only providing an MRI service.

The hospital centre offered services 7 days a week. They provided services for both NHS and private referrals for adults over the age of 18.

The diagnostic imaging department performs 500-600 MRI scans per month. 60% are for the NHS and 40% private referrals. The endoscopy department performs 200-300 procedures per month. 95% are for the NHS and 5% private referrals.

The hospital had a registered manager in post and was registered for diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The hospital was previously inspected in July 2016 when outpatients and diagnostic imaging were inspected as one core service. The inspection resulted in Regulation 12- safe care and treatment requirement notices.

This was the first time the hospital had been inspected at individual core service level.

The main service provided by this hospital was Medical care. Where our findings on Medical care – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the Medicine service.

Updated 6 May 2022

This was the first time the hospital had been inspected at individual core service level.

We rated it as requires improvement because:

• We rated three of the hospital’s core services as requires improvement. We rated the hospital as requires improvement for safe and inadequate for being well-led.
• The service did not control infection risk well.
• The service did not store all medicines safely.
• Staff did not always follow guidance when completing the surgical safety checklist.
• The provider did not manage safety incidents well and did not share learned lessons from them.
• The provider did not make sure that all medical staff had completed mandatory training.
• Staff did not always record that patients had consented for their care.
• The service’s governance structure did not ensure performance and risks were managed effectively.
• Staff did not always feel respected, supported and valued.
• Staff were not always clear about their roles and accountabilities.
• The provider did not have a clear vision and strategy.
• The provider did not have effective assurance system in to monitor referrals to the GMC by other organisations for consultants working under practicing privileges.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Updated 6 May 2022

This was the first time the service had been inspected at individual core service level.

We rated it as requires improvement because:

• The service had not made sure that all medical staff had received mandatory training. They did not effectively assess all risks to patients as surgical safety checklists were not always completed in line with guidance.
• The service did not ensure that all medicines were stored correctly which could impact on the medication’s effectiveness.
• The service did not ensure that incidents were managed well and lessons learned were shared.
• Staff did not always follow the most up to date guidance to provide evidence based care and treatment.
• Managers did not always monitor the effectiveness of the service and make sure staff were competent for their roles.
• The service did not have a strategy with a credible plan of actions to achieve a vision.
• Leaders did not operate effective governance processes and risks were not managed well.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Nursing staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff kept good care records.
• Staff gave patients enough to eat and drink and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Updated 6 May 2022

This was the first time the service had been inspected at individual core service level.

We rated it as requires improvement because:

• The service did not control infection risk well.
• The service did not manage safety incidents well.
• The service did not have a robust audit programme to monitor the effectiveness of the service.
• Staff did not always feel respected, supported and valued.
• Staff were not always clear about their roles and accountabilities.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records.
• Managers made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
• Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care.

Updated 6 May 2022

This was the first time the service had been inspected at individual core service level. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Leaders had not ensured that the environment was safe for patients and staff.
• The service did not manage safety incidents well and ensure they shared learned lessons from them.
• The service did not always control infection risk well, including clinical waste.
• Managers did not monitor the effectiveness of the service.
• Leaders did not run services well using reliable information systems and did not support staff to develop their skills.
• Staff did not understand the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Nursing staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records.
• Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Outpatients is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was endoscopy reported under Medical care. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the Medical care section.