• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Chelsfield Park Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Buck Cross Road, Chelsfield, Orpington, Kent, BR6 7RG (01689) 877855

Provided and run by:
Circle Health Group Limited

All Inspections

12 and 13 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Chelsfield Park hospital is one of 59 hospitals and clinics provided by BMI Healthcare Limited. BMI Healthcare is the UK's largest private hospital group and was formed in 1970. In 1993 after various changes, the group was renamed BMI Healthcare, and its new corporate group became General Healthcare Group (GHG). In 2006 GHG was acquired by a consortium led jointly by Netcare Limited, a South African healthcare company.

We inspected the hospital as part of our independent hospital inspection programme. The inspection was conducted using the CQC’s comprehensive inspection methodology. This was a routine planned inspection.

The hospital provides a range of medical, surgical and diagnostic services. The onsite facilities include two operating theatres (both with laminar airflow), 36 registered beds spread across two floors, a minor procedure theatre, seven consulting rooms and a minor procedure room.

The hospital offers physiotherapy treatment as both an inpatient and outpatient service in its own dedicated physiotherapy suite. The imaging department provides plain x-ray, ultrasound, and mobile MRI onsite four days a week, and full field digital mammography.

The dedicated assisted conception unit was not included in this inspection.

Services offered include general surgery, bariatrics, and cosmetic surgery. Diagnostic imaging and endoscopy provide diagnostic services. In addition there is limited general medicine provision, oncology and physiotherapy. Patients are self-paying or use private medical insurance. Some services are available to NHS patients through the NHS choose and book system or spot contracts.

The announced inspection took place between 12 and 13 July 2016, followed by a routine unannounced visit on 21 July 2016.

This was a comprehensive planned inspection of all core services provided at the hospital: surgery, outpatient and diagnostic imaging, both of which include services for children and young people. General medical services are provided to patients using the same nursing staff, patient rooms and facilities as other patients. For this reason we have not reported this separately but have included endoscopy and children and young peoples services within surgery.

Are services safe at this hospital

  • Improvements were required to ensure a safe service was consistently provided. This included improving the completion of the World Health Organisation (WHO) ‘five steps to safer surgery’ checklist, and patient treatment and care records.
  • Infection prevention and control practice in theatres and on the wards was mostly good. The use of personal protective equipment was not always used by consultants during procedures which may have posed as a risk of exposure.
  • Staff were provided with relevant safety training, including safeguarding vulnerable people. They were knowledgeable about the hospital’s safeguarding policy and clear about their responsibilities to report concerns. Staff were supported by a designated safeguarding lead. However, the number of staff trained to safeguarding level 3 did not meet the recommended guidance.
  • Medicine optimisation was managed safely.
  • Staff were fully aware of the incident reporting process, and there was a formal system for reviewing and learning such matters. The duty of candour was understood by staff with regards to incidents, which met the threshold of informing relevant individuals.
  • Nursing staffing levels were organised to ensure the delivery of safe care. The service ensured a Resident Medical Officer (RMO) was on duty at all times.
  • Consultants with practising privileges took ultimate responsibility for treatment and care.
  • There were arrangements for communicating patient related information between shift changes, and at times when the admitting consultant needed to be made aware of their respective patient’s condition.
  • A national early warning score was used to identify patients whose condition might deteriorate, and transfer arrangements had been established for patients who required higher levels of treatment or care.

Are services effective at this hospital

  • Staff provided care and treatment, which took account of nationally recognised evidence based guidance and professional standards. Audit of practices followed a defined programme and included medicine management, and urinary catheters. Action plans were completed and acted upon where audits achieved less than 100% compliance.
  • Policies related to service provision at the location were shared with staff and then discussed at the Medical Advisory Committee.
  • Pain management and nutritional support was integral to the provision of effective patient care.
  • There were effective arrangements for reviewing and agreeing consultant practising privileges, and for removing these when required information was not forthcoming. The revalidation of the consultants and registered nursing staffs fitness to practise ensured services could be delivered effectively.
  • There were nine unplanned returns to theatre during the reporting period April 2015 to March 2016. Unplanned readmissions within 28 days of discharge for the same period was 18. There were five unplanned transfers of inpatients to another hospital, which was better than other similar independent hospitals.
  • NHS Patients participated in the patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) data collection if they had undergone surgery for hip or knee replacement and inguinal hernia repair. Insufficient data was available for the period April 2014 to March 2015 (reported February 2016) to calculate the average adjusted health gain score for either primary knee or hip replacement.
  • Staff had been provided with training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) as part of mandatory training. They understood their responsibilities, and were clear about the processes to follow if they thought a patient lacked capacity to make decisions about their care. The Gillick test and the Fraser guidelines, which related to a child’s capacity to give independent consent to medical procedures, were understood by relevant clinical staff.
  • Patients were provided with information as part of the consent process; however, most patient notes reviewed showed consent was obtained on the day of treatment.

Are services caring at this hospital

  • The hospital participated in the ‘friends and family test’ (FFT). Between October 2015 and March 2016 the hospital reported 100% of patients would recommend the hospital to their friends and families. The amount of patients who responded to the test was moderate (between 30% and 58%).
  • The Patient Led Assessments of the Care Environment (PLACE) audit between February 2015 and June 2015 score for privacy, dignity and wellbeing was 92%, compared to an England average of 87% for independent acute hospitals.
  • Staff recognised patients individuality and ensured they provided sufficient information and emotional support to enable a rapid recovery. Staff were respectful in their administrations, and treated patients and family members with kindness, courtesy and compassion.

Are services responsive at this hospital

  • The executive team worked with clinical commissioning groups to determine the range of surgical and other services provided to NHS patients within the surrounding population. Private provision of services reflected the agreed range of activities, based on the suitability of facilities, available support and risk criteria.
  • An inclusion/acceptance criterion was applied by staff after assessing the patient’s needs. All patients are risk assessed for potential to require extended recovery care. The admitting consultant would make decisions regarding the suitability of admitting patients with specific needs associated with dementia or learning disabilities.
  • The Resident Medical Officer reviewed patients throughout the day and was available out of hours. Consultants reviewed their own patients and were required to attend to their patients within a thirty minute journey time, should the need arise. Transfer arrangements were set up in the event of a patient’s condition deteriorating.
  • The hospital dealt with complaints and concerns responsively, and learning from such matters was used to improve the quality of care.

Are services well led at this hospital

  • Staff were aware of the expectations of executive team and understood what the vision and values were. They were supported by an effective and responsive leadership at the executive level, as well as their respective departments.
  • Staff enjoyed working at the hospital, and described an open culture and of feeling valued and supported. The recent changes in management at the hospital were positively acknowledged.
  • The Medical Advisory Committee worked with the executive team to ensure the monitoring of quality of services was reviewed, and challenged where needed. They were responsible for reviewed practising privilege, including fit and proper person information, before agreeing acceptance to use the service.
  • Governance arrangements ensured incidents, complaints, audit results and policy development were reviewed and learning was shared appropriately. However, the risk register, which was a temporary document, was not sufficiently robust and lacked evidence of review dates for many of the identified risks.
  • Staff were encouraged to continuously learn and improvement was fostered through training and development opportunities.
  • The availability of capital helped the service to improve and develop services. Recent purchases included a bariatric operating table, new theatre stack systems and endoscopes.
  • As an approved service for Bariatric surgery, equipment was available to support the service, and a designated team of specialty trained staff worked with the consultant to ensure patients received the required standards of treatment and care.
  • An enhanced recovery program provided a comprehensive rehabilitation program for orthopaedic patients, including specialised physiotherapy to achieve earlier mobilisation and discharge.
  • The pharmacy manager had implemented a pharmaceutical care plan, and an antibiotic care plan had also been introduced to improve practices.
  • The service was working toward obtaining accreditation for the endoscopy services with an external body.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The service was led by a dedicated local executive team, supported by loyal staff, who were professional in their duties and responsibilities.
  • The areas in which patients received treatment and care were noted to be clean and well organised. Infection prevention and control measures were followed by the majority of staff.
  • Staffing levels, skills and experience contributed to high standards of care and good patient experiences.
  • Patients’ needs including effective pain management and nutrition were optimised.
  • The standards of leadership and governance arrangements contributed to the effectiveness and responsiveness of the services.
  • There were sufficient and appropriately skilled staff available to support the safe delivery of patient care.
  • The nutritional and hydration needs of patients were assessed and catered for.

However, there were areas of where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the provider should:

  • Improve compliance with the World Health Organisation (WHO) ‘five steps to safer surgery’ procedures.
  • Improve consultant compliance with the use of personal protective equipment during invasive procedures, in line with NICE guidelines and BMI policy.
  • Improve the completion of patient records to enable the availability of a fully detailed record.
  • Consider how professional guidelines can be applied to support the safeguarding training further.
  • Improve the use of the risk register with the incorporation of review dates for all identified risks.
  • Consider having leaflets available in other languages as well as in English.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

18 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that staff were very good and that they had received good care at the hospital. We were told that people were aware of their discharge plan and had been provided with information regarding their operation and recovery time. One person told us “the care is very good, can’t fault the service and I have seen the consultant every day” and another said “I’m very pleased with everything has gone very smoothly”.

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and regularly reviewed; the care plans reflected people’s needs and the appropriate risk assessment were completed on admission. Documentation in the care plans showed that information was updated. Records showed that complaints were responded to within the appropriate timescales. The provider had systems in place to ensure that staff were recruited safely and the appropriate checks were completed prior to staff starting work at the hospital.

22 January 2013

During a routine inspection

One person told us that the service was “a nice place”, “the staff were very good and fantastic” and she was “extremely happy” with her care. Another person said he was “very happy with the care” and “was well informed” of his treatment and care plan.

One person told us that it was “a nice place”, “the staff were very good” and they were “extremely happy” with the care.

We were told that 'the staff were fantastic' and kept them informed about their treatment.

People we spoke to said that they felt safe and secure in the hospital, and trusted that the members of staff would look after them.

21 February 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they felt respected and were treated with dignity.

People said that they were given information prior to their admission about what to expect and what their surgery involved.

One person we spoke with said that they had received 'exceptional care' and the staff were 'excellent'.

People said they were happy with the information provided to them on discharge and that the discharging nurse was very thorough.