• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

KIMS Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Newnham Court Way, Weavering, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 5FT (01622) 237500

Provided and run by:
KIMS Hospital Limited

All Inspections

18 January 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our rating of this service stayed the same. As this was a focused inspection we did not change the rating for the service. At the last inspection in 2019 well-led was rated as good.

  • Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. 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 staff to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

10 to 11 January 2018

During a routine inspection

KIMS Hospital is operated by KIMS Hospital Ltd. The hospital has 99 beds, 72 of which are currently in use. Facilities include five operating theatres, three of which were laminar flow, an endoscopy suite, an interventional lab/suite, and X-ray, outpatient and diagnostic facilities.

The hospital provides surgery, medical care, and outpatients and diagnostic imaging (including services for children and young people). We inspected surgery, medical care, outpatients, and diagnostic imaging.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 10 and 11 January 2018.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this hospital was surgery. Where our findings on surgery – for example, major incident planning – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery core service.

Services we rate

We rated this hospital as good overall.

We found good practice in relation to medical care:

  • Patients were supported, treated with dignity and respect, and were involved as partners in their care.

  • Patient records were written and managed to keep people safe. They were clear, legible and risk assessments were completed in all of the records we reviewed. Notes were organised and stored in a lockable trolley.
  • Staffing levels were planned and reviewed to keep patients safe and staff were flexible and happy to adjust their shifts to suit patient need.
  • The hospital used a quality dashboard and routinely collected and monitored information about patient outcomes. The hospital took part in national audits and staff created action plans to improve patient outcomes.

We found good practice in relation to surgery:

  • The hospital had a clear incident reporting process and staff had good knowledge of this. Staff were encouraged to report incidents and felt they could report incidents openly. They provided examples of learning and where changes had taken place.

  • The service had introduced strong processes to ensure consultants only operated within their scope of practice. Staff had evidence of up-to-date appraisal to provide assurances around their skills and competencies.

  • The service actively involved patients and their relatives in their treatment, such as by providing an educational pre-operative “joint school”.

  • Governance and performance management arrangements were proactively reviewed and reflected best practice.

    We found good practice in relation to outpatients and diagnostic imaging:

  • The hospital had safeguarding leads, a named doctor and a named nurse for adults at risk and children and young people. Staff could name the key people and had knowledge of what to do if they had to raise a safeguarding concern.

  • Staff managed medicine safely and followed hospital policy and national guidance. Medicines were stored securely and were within their expiry dates.

  • There was effective multi-disciplinary team working with teams of all services throughout the hospital.

We found an area of outstanding practice in medical care:

  • The cardiac catheterisation laboratory carried out comprehensive risk assessments for all patients. We saw a pre-assessment and discharge checklist and specific pathways for each procedure. Based on risk assessments, staff had included additional checks to the World Health Organisation ‘five steps to safer surgery’ checklist.

We found areas of outstanding practice in the hospital as a whole:

  • The hospital had volunteers known as ‘KIMS' angels’ who spent time in departments talking to patients. This was introduced to enhance patient care and support patients so that they felt listened to.

  • The hospital’s strong commitment to staff engagement included direct links to the board through ‘KIMS Voice’ so they could directly communicate their views, ideas and concerns

We found areas of practice that require improvement in surgery:

  • The exclusion and acceptance criteria for surgery did not give specific guidance to consultants, which meant the service could not be assured that consultants were consistent in determining a patient’s suitability for surgery at the hospital.

  • Carpeted flooring in clinical areas should be replaced in line with the hospital’s replacement programme.

We found areas of practice that require improvement in outpatients:

  • The safety gate installed at the doorway to the children’s waiting room was covered with hazard tape. This could lead to potential trips and/or falls.

  • Not all treatment areas had flooring fit for purpose.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (area of responsibility)

23 - 24 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection of KIMS Hospital between 22 and 24 September 2015. We also carried out an unannounced inspection of the hospital on 29 September 2015. The purpose of the unannounced inspection was to look at how the hospital operated at off-peak times.

KIMS was inspected as part of our second wave of comprehensive inspections of independent healthcare providers. The hospital was selected because it is a new service offering complex treatments and we had very little intelligence on the quality of care and treatment.

Overall we rated the service as 'Requires Improvement' because most of the core services that we reviewed were requiring improvement. Most of the issues we identified were already known to the provider and they had taken steps to introduce changes but many of these were too recent to have had a significant impact. In discussion with the executive team, it was clear they were committed to providing a high quality service and knew how to achieve this but were still developing their assurance framework.

Underutilisation of the hospital was a serious problem for the provider. Use of the service had not been as high as initially projected and the board and executive team were reviewing how they provided services to address this. In the interim staff were at risk of losing their skills and there was a lack of clarity about exactly what KIMS hospital offered.

A new governance manager had been appointed and was aware of what needed to be done but in the two weeks they had been in post they had not had sufficient time to demonstrate a real impact.