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 planned care and treatment to meet the needs of local people, took account of people's individual needs and future care plans, and made it easy for people to give feedback about their experiences. Care and treatment was centred around people and their needs. People could access the service when they needed it, in a way that promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

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.

People who use the service told us their needs and preferences were taken into account. The service used patient surveys and held quarterly patient participation groups to listen to the views of people who use the service and used the feedback to make improvements. We looked at feedback from September 2024 to December 2024 and people spoke very positively about the care they received. People gave positive feedback about how they were treated by all staff groups including receptionists, porters, nursing and medical staff. Survey feedback was collected electronically and managers were focused on ways to improve the response rate (32%).

Staff told us they completed risk assessments and person-centred care plans were put in place where risks were identified. They were regularly reviewed and discussed with patients to enable improvements or changes to their plan of care. Care records we looked at showed person-centred care plans were in place that took into account people’s individual needs and preferences.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who use the service. We saw staff understood their needs and provided appropriate care and treatment.

Staff received mandatory training in equality and diversity, dementia awareness and learning disability and autism. Records showed that compliance was over 99% for all staff groups as of December 2024.

The pre-operative assessments identified patients living with dementia or a learning disability. The service had a dementia lead who supported patients and staff to put plans in place to provide safe care and treatment.

Staff told us how they made reasonable adjustments for people who use the service based on their specific needs. This included the allocation of extra time in the anaesthetic room if a patient was autistic or was very anxious about the procedure. This was identified at the pre-operative assessment stage and further questions were asked about what the patient needed. Staff told us that they had monthly and weekly meetings to plan and prepare for any reasonable adjustments that patients required.

People who use the service had access to a neurodiverse box with fidget toys to help with anxiety before and after surgery or treatment.

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of people and the local communities. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Approximately 74% of people who use the service were NHS funded and the remainder were privately insured and self-paying. Referrals into the service came from GP's or inter-provider transfers from the partnering NHS hospital. Senior leaders told us how they worked proactively with system partners to sustain NHS partnerships and contribute to the overall NHS elective recovery plan". Managers planned and organised services, so they met the needs of the local population. The hospital's elective surgical activity helped support the capacity and waiting lists of the local NHS hospital.

People who use the service spoke positively about care being well co-ordinated and said they felt listened to and valued. They told us that staff had involved them throughout the care pathway from the referral and initial pre-operative assessment to post surgery follow up appointments. They told us they had been given options regarding their treatment and had chosen this provider.

Staff told us they received all the information from pre-operative assessments to plan people's care and treatment. They told us they prepared equipment, consumable items and medicines for each person in advance of their scheduled procedures.

The service had daily safety meetings with staff across the service to discuss patients ongoing care and treatment. Pre-operative assessment multidisciplinary team meetings took place to discuss complex cases before decisions were made regarding suitability for surgery.

Feedback from stakeholders, such as the partnering NHS hospital was positive. They told us that the service engaged well in planned care partnership meetings to plan and deliver people's care and treatment.

The service reported and monitored themes for surgical procedure cancellations and took actions to reduce cancellation rates. The most common reasons included patient personal reasons and consultant availability.

Staff retention was stable and turnover was low with 90% of staff having been employed over a year. This enabled continuity of care for patients.

People who use the service told us staff provided them with the necessary information about their care and treatment. They told us that they shared information clearly and answered any questions they had. However, staff told us that the gap in medical secretary staffing had led to delays in correspondence being typed up. Some patients and GP’s had contacted the service to enquire about the delay in receiving letters.

Information leaflets about the services were readily available in all the areas we visited. Staff told us they could provide information in different languages or other accessible formats and could access language interpreters if needed.

The service had ‘easy read’ versions of discharge booklets and hospital passports that used large font and pictures. This recorded important information about the patient so that staff could support them in the best way possible. It included information such as anxieties, likes and dislikes, interests and preferred ways to communicate.

Staff told us they received training in information governance and confidentiality and that they could easily access information such as care records, policies and guidance relevant to their role.

The service had an electronic performance dashboard which included information around clinical indicators such as patient safety, incidents and complaints. We observed that information on service performance and key risks were shared with staff through team meetings and emails. The electronic system allowed the service to benchmark against the other provider hospitals.

The service routinely engaged with people who use the service through patient participation groups and surveys. Staff told us they encouraged people to provide feedback about the care and treatment they received. We observed posters and leaflets with QR codes throughout the service asking for people to give feedback. Patient feedback was very positive about their overall treatment journey.

We observed leaflets on how to make a complaint in the reception area. The service also provided information booklets to all patients that clearly identified how to provide feedback and raise complaints. However, most people we spoke with told us they did not know how to make a complaint. They told us they would look on the provider website to find out or contact CQC.

Staff told us information about complaints were discussed during daily huddles and routine staff meetings. We observed a range of meeting minutes that had complaints on the agenda including ward and theatre meetings, clinical governance and MAC meetings.

The provider's complaints policy provided guidance on how staff should handle complaints. This included the process to follow for unresolved complaints and signposted to external organisations such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (for NHS patients) and the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) for private funded patients.

Managers reviewed complaints, compliments and feedback to aid learning and improvement. There were 25 complaints for surgery recorded between November 2023 and December 2024. The main themes for complaints were `communication' and `cancellations'. There had been 338 positive online reviews for the same time period. Most compliments praised the staff and the standard of care they had received.

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 and private 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 treatment in a prompt and timely manner and did not experience long waits when they arrived for their treatment.

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.

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.

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.

Managers told us the service had sufficient capacity to meet peoples' needs and performance around access and flow was monitored daily 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

Staff were able to give examples of how they respected the individual wishes of people with protected characteristics, such as disability and people with communication or language difficulties. People told us their needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff.

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.

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.

The service did not collect data on waiting times from arrival onsite to treatment.

People who use the service told us the staff had discussed their long-term care and treatment plans with them and their preferences were taken into account. Staff used discharge information booklets collaboratively with patients to record information about the care and treatment received and future information such as medication and follow up appointments.

People we spoke with told us that they had been given advice and information on how to manage at home after surgery.

The service did not provide additional support post-treatment or for individuals approaching end of life.