Goring Hall Hospital

Updated 15 March 2022

Goring Hall Hospital is operated by Circle Health Group Limited. It is a private hospital in Goring by Sea, near Worthing, West Sussex. The hospital primarily serves the communities of West Sussex. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area.

The hospital has a registered manager in post.

Goring Hall Hospital provides surgery, endoscopy, outpatients and diagnostic imaging services to adults. Care and treatment are provided to people who are self-funded, through private medical insurance and NHS funded.

The hospital has one ward consisting of 22 bedrooms with ensuite facilities, a day care unit consisting of 12 beds and an ambulatory care area comprising of 4 chairs. All bedrooms had a TV and WIFI. The hospital has three theatres and one endoscopy unit. The outpatient department consists of six consulting rooms, one ophthalmic suite, a consulting room and treatment room, three pre-assessment clinic rooms, and a physiotherapy unit. The diagnostic imaging service includes magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT, digital mammography, ultrasound and plain film X-ray. There are no emergency facilities at this hospital.

There are 125 surgeons, anaesthetists and physicians working at the hospital under practising privileges.

The service is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

•Diagnostic and screening procedures

• Surgical procedures

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The hospital has a registered manager who has been in post since March 2018. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage a service. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how a service is managed.

The hospital was previously inspected in 2018 and rated as good. We inspected Goring Hall Hospital using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short notice announced inspection on 7 December 2021.

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

Updated 15 March 2022

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.

Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We currently do not rate effective in outpatients and diagnostic imaging services.

However:

Patient records were not always kept securely.

Social distancing and personal protective equipment was not always used correctly in the surgical staff room.

Two disposable curtains in the diagnostic imaging department had not been replaced for over six months.

Defibrillation pads on the resuscitation trolley in theatres had expired two weeks before the inspection.

The enhanced recovery unit (ERU) was cluttered with equipment. Staff we spoke with were not aware that the ERU was not in use, or that it could be used in certain circumstances with sufficient notice for clearing and cleaning.

Patients privacy and dignity was not protected whilst checking in at reception in the diagnostic imaging department.

Updated 15 March 2022

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. 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 patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Medicine is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

Updated 15 March 2022

We previously inspected outpatients jointly with diagnostic imaging so we cannot compare our new ratings directly with previous ratings. We rated it as good because:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. 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 patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Diagnostic imaging was a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive, and well led. We do not rate effective in diagnostic imaging services.

Updated 15 March 2022

We previously inspected outpatients jointly with diagnostic imaging so we cannot compare our new ratings directly with previous ratings. We rated it as good because:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. 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 patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Outpatients is a small proportion of the hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive, and well led. We do not rate effective in outpatients service.

Updated 15 March 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. 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 patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

Patient records were not always kept secure. Trolleys storing patient records on Ilex ward and the day surgery unit were unlocked.

The enhanced recovery unit (ERU) was cluttered with equipment. Staff we spoke with were not aware that the ERU was not in use, or that it could be used in certain circumstances with sufficient notice for clearing and cleaning.

Staff in one area did not adhere to social distancing rules, maximum room occupancy and were not wearing personal protected equipment (PPE) correctly.

There was a high number of surgical procedures cancelled for non-clinical reasons.

Defibrillation pads on the resuscitation trolley in theatres had expired.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.