The Beaumont 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

We rated responsive as good.

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 participation forum where people could give feedback on their care. We saw posters with a QR code asking for feedback in the department, there had only been 347 responses in the previous quarter, the managers recognised the low response and acknowledged that some people would prefer paper feedback which may improve the response rate. The responses were positive, and people said staff were kind, friendly and professional.

The service had undertaken some quality improvement initiatives in the outpatient’s department. They looked at the patient journey from the entrance of the hospital to the department. This was carried out by staff and a patient, this identified that clearer signage and lighting was required, new signage had been put in place.

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 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. The preoperative team contacted the GP where there were concerns regarding the persons health and further treatment was required prior to surgery. The physiotherapy lead had promoted the service to the local GP services and a local leisure facility.

The department notified the central team when people had not attended an appointment. The central office followed up where people did not attend an appointment, and the local hospital team created more clinic slots when possible.

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 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 listening events and patient surveys. The service provided patients with information about how to make a complaint. Complaints were monitored through the heads of department meeting and governance meetings. There was a hospital wide action plan in place, the complaints were in the main regarding fees, carparking and appointment cancellation. The service was aware that the feedback response was low and were exploring ideas to improve this.

Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who are 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. There was a draft policy for supporting patients with learning disabilities and/or autism that was due to be finalised in 2025. The hospital provided services for NHS, private and self-funding patients, over the age of 18 for outpatient, diagnostic, inpatient and day case surgical care. The service provided elective surgery across several elective surgical specialties for NHS patients on the referral to treatment waiting lists, under commissioning arrangements with local NHS acute trusts.

People who use the service told us they received an appointment in a prompt and timely manner and did not experience long waits when they arrived for their appointment.

People who use the service 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 where required.

Staff told us they monitored and followed up any people who did not attend their appointments and rescheduled their appointments promptly to ensure their treatment schedules were not disrupted. A tracker system was in place which demonstrated an effective follow up of people who had failed to attend their appointment.

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 multi-disciplinary team meeting took place weekly 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 performance around access to minimise any delays to people’s care and treatment.

The service monitored waiting times from referral and made sure people could access services promptly when needed. They monitored people who did not attend their appointments and made sure their treatment was rearranged as soon as possible.

The service had processes to identify any barriers that could disadvantage different groups of people using their service. Actions had been taken to address barriers and improve people’s experience. This included improved accessibility to interpretation and translation services for patients whose primary language was not English, we observed the use of the service in practice during our assessment.

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. The pre-operative nurse described how they managed complex mental health needs to provide support to enable a positive experience.

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

We looked at data around incidents, complaints and treatment outcomes and this did not identify any disparity in care or adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics.

People were supported to make decisions about their care through informed consent. The Physiotherapy team supported patients to aim to maximise their mobility following procedures. The service does not provide end of life care.