BPAS - Bournemouth

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff empowered patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment.

The service shared a case study where they had supported a patient with severe autism and anxiety. By reviewing all their notes and through close collaboration with the treatment service manager and the clinical team, staff were able to create an individualised plan for the patient. This included meeting the patient outside the service and introducing themselves prior to the procedure. The service also arranged for the patient to enter through the staff entrance and prepared a private room which reduced their anxiety triggers. The patient was supported throughout their pathway which allowed them to receive their necessary treatment with minimal distress.

The service shared how the telemedicine hub team had recently worked with the local safeguarding specialist team to ensure an extremely vulnerable patient who suffered from anxiety received a person centred care and treatment by making sure they were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. By doing so, the patient was able to go ahead with the treatment and was able to access safe treatment.

We reviewed patient records which indicated a person-centred care with choice and opportunities to have counselling, chaperone and advice relating to contraception.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local community, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The clinic had well established relationships in the wider health community. The established transfer agreement with the local acute NHS hospital allowed care to be joined up and ensure smooth transfers in case of an emergency.

For patients who decided to continue with their pregnancy, the service referred them to their local GP and maternity services and worked closely with one another to provide continuity of care to the patient.

Where patients had been under the care of a specific hospital specialty, the service communicated with their named consultant’s secretary to request specific information required regarding a condition, surgery or treatment pathway.

In addition to this, the service also worked with the school’s pastoral support person where patients under 18 were registered and liaised with them to support them through their pathway.

The service held quarterly meetings with their local integrated care board where information and learning was shared. We reviewed the meeting minutes for September 2025 for which topics of discussion were centred around the services activity and quality monitoring report and policy compliance.

Patients were asked for permission to contact their GP for information such as medicines, medical conditions or safeguarding concerns. A copy of the discharge letter was sent to the GP if the patient consented.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to make a complaint.

Patients told us they found the information received prior to their visit very useful as it made finding the service easy. The service provided patients with information about their procedure during the initial consultation and during discharge. We observed a discharge process where the patient was provided with information on pain management and the aftercare line, which was available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to those who required this.

We spoke to a patient post treatment who said that everyone had treated them “very nicely” and everything had been explained to her well and they understood what they had been told.

The service provided clear information in accessible formats so people could make informed decisions about their care and treatment. For people who lacked capacity, staff followed the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and involved families, advocates, and professionals to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests and in line with their known wishes.

The service communicated with patients via different formats/languages and channels i.e. digital/written/verbal with translation and sign language services. Additionally, the services website was designed following AIS (accessible information standard) requirements and used a variety of media to inform and support their patients.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service valued feedback from patients and members of the public and viewed this as an opportunity to learn and improve for the future. Staff had access to the complaints and feedback policy which was in date and due for a review in 2026.

All feedback and complaints were recorded and interrogated to identify trends or themes. A review of the complaints received from April 2025 to September 2025 showed waiting times on the day and waiting times for treatment to be the top theme. The findings of these were triangulated regularly with incident reporting and patient outcomes to support learning throughout the organisation on a monthly, quarterly and yearly basis.

Patients were encouraged to provide feedback throughout their pathway and were provided with a feedback and complaint policy booklet which explained how complaints were handled. In addition, they could also leave feedback through the services website. The service was in the process of currently recruiting for patient representatives to help better inform improvements to the service.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. This included the details of the ombudsman should the patient remain dissatisfied.

Following a formal complaint from a patient about treatment cancellations due to staff sickness and poor communication around this, the service provided feedback to staff regarding communicating with patients and were in the process of putting together an action plan with a more robust process in organising cover.

The clinic shared with us a summary of the local complaints from the reporting period April to September 2025. A common theme identified was around the wait times on the day and wait times for treatment particularly around the lack of surgeon cover on surgical days. Patients also raised concerns about the wait times through the satisfaction survey.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The clinic did not always meet the national standard set for wait times of 90% of patients seen within 7 days from ‘contact to consultation’ and ‘consultation to treatment’. Although data showed an improving trend around compliance over the last year, the clinic performance report showed they had only met the national standard of 90% of patients completing consultations within 7 days from initial contact for two reporting months, during the period April 2025 until September 2025. For consultation to treatment, the clinic had only met this once for the same period.

The clinic cited various reasons why treatment may not be completed within 7 days of consultation including suitability, ambivalence, patient choice and surgeon cover availability specifically for Bournemouth who ran a weekly surgical service. The organisation had also launched a survey in March 2025 for surgical patients to capture data and reasons for why patients were not receiving treatment in this timeframe and determine what percentage of patients who had treatment outside this timescale were due to reasons of patient choice.

The service ran a surgical list two days per week and reported surgeon cover disruptions for 4 of these lists during the month of August and September 2025, due to surgeon annual leave which impacted capacity and wait times.

Waiting lists were monitored daily by the treatment unit manager and managed regionally. Where possible additional surgical lists were arranged to reduce waiting times for patients. Patients affected by service disruptions at Bournemouth were offered alternative appointments in BPAS Taunton or Richmond. The organisation was also working on implementing a medical workforce and surgical plan and liaised with capacity managers to ensure surgeon cover plan was in place where possible.

The service had a standard operating procedure for ‘waiting times to consultation’ to escalate non-compliance and relevant staff to agree mitigating actions and a standard operating procedure for ‘waiting times to clinic’ to escalate waiting times that exceeded 7 days. The clinic performance report showed they had only met the national standards of 90% for contact to consultations on two occasions from the period April 2025 until September 2025. For consultation to treatment, the clinic had only met this once for the same time period.

Not having enough surgeon cover nationally was the top risk within the clinics risk register. The clinic reported that the lack of surgeon cover had affected 11 lists out of a total of 58 planned lists at the Bournemouth during the period in April 2025 to the end of September 2025. The service had seen a number of complaints from patients having their procedures cancelled or no availability due to no surgeon cover and mitigations were offered to all patients affected with appointments offered at alternative locations such as Portsmouth, Richmond and Birmingham.

Access and waiting times were one of the quality priorities for the organisation where they looked at three indicators with a target of 90%. Data provided by the service showed the organisation was meeting the target for two out of the three indicators. Following this, the organisation had increased their ultrasound scan capacity and had a rolling programme of training and competency assessment to ensure a safe and responsive service.

Patients were offered a choice of face-to-face and telephone consultations at a time which suited them which included weekends and evenings. The service made reasonable adjustments according to the needs of the patients and these were recorded on the service’s electronic notes to provide support throughout the patient pathway.

Patients had access to information relating to their appointments and treatment via the organisation's website as well as contact details for the other hubs. Patients under 18 received a video call and were invited for a face to face discussion if they had concerns.

Patients could contact the aftercare line or the telemedicine hub if they had any concerns. The aftercare line was open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The service was currently adapting their booking process, with an online booking function launching at the end October 2025. This development was based on feedback received and was as an example of a changing need and more digital pathway preference for some patients.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and used this information to adjust the patient pathway in response to this.

The service proactively sought out ways to address barriers in order to improve people’s experience, act on information about people’s experiences and outcomes and allocate resources and opportunities to achieve equity.

Staff told us how the service offered face to face consultations to patients with protected characteristics and how this allowed staff to understand and support them better.

The service was in the process of updating their ‘care of transgender and gender diverse patients’ policy. Leaders gave us an example of how the service had supported a transgender patient with a person centred approach and making sure they were comfortable and happy at all stages. In addition to this, leaders told us, staff provided one to one support to these patients as well as support with their mental health.

The service provided examples of research projects they were currently participating in, one of which included looking at the impact of telemedicine on abortion accessibility and equitable provision of services in England and Wales.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Care plans reviewed accurately reflected patients decisions and choice including advice on contraception.

Staff had access to the organisations post abortion patient discharge policy which set out the discharge process depending on the treatment or procedure.

We observed a discharge process where staff went through the contents of the discharge letter with the patient. Staff provided patients with information about after-care and what to expect for a normal recovery. This included the contact details of the aftercare helpline if they needed to seek medical advice.

In addition to this, patients were given clear instructions on pain management and provided with information relating to follow up appointments and emotional support information and the organisations to contact.