You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 January 2012
Date of Publication: 24 February 2012
Inspection Report published 24 February 2012 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

Our judgement

Patients were positive about the quality of care and treatment provided to them. Patients received care and treatment that met their needs and minimised risks to their safety.

Overall, we found that BMI The Garden Hospital was meeting this essential standard.

User experience

We spoke with some patients who had undergone surgical procedures at the hospital about their experiences. They told us they were happy with the care and treatment they had received. For example, one patient told us that staff were ‘all very good and very helpful in every way’. Another patient said, ‘it’s fantastic here, everything you would expect’.

Patients told us that staff listened to what they wanted and their privacy and dignity had been respected. Pain relief was described as ‘very good’ and it was administered when needed.

We saw that visitors were allowed at anytime and patients said they particularly valued this. Relatives we spoke with said that staff had been very supportive and kept them informed of what was happening. One relative said she really appreciated that staff had said she could telephone the ward at any time. She had found this very reassuring.

Other evidence

We reviewed a number of surgical records of patients who had undergone cosmetic and other types of surgery. These showed that records were kept of all instrument packs, medical devices and implants used in the course of the individual surgery. This provided assurance that all instruments and medical devices were sterile and enabled the retrospective tracing of particular medical devices and implants should this become necessary. For example, the provider was able to determine whether a patient had been fitted with a particular type of breast implant once concerns about this implant had been raised. Women had contacted the hospital requesting information about the implants that had been used in surgery and this information was available to them. In these circumstances free consultations at the hospital were being offered to women with concerns about implants used in their surgery.

Healthcare records showed that a range of risk assessments had been carried out when the patient was admitted to the ward. We also saw that pre and post-operative checks had been performed. Detailed notes of patients’ progress were kept. Anaesthetic plans and records were complete. The reason the patient required the surgery was stated.

WHO surgical safety checklists had been completed for all surgical procedures we reviewed. This ensured that the correct patient received the correct operation. Operation sites were verified and all instruments, swabs and needles had been accounted for before the patient left the operating theatre.