Spire Parkway Hospital

Ratings - Surgery

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Good

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

We carried out this assessment as the service had not been inspected since 2019.

Spire Parkway Hospital is part of the Spire Healthcare Limited. The hospital is a private hospital and offers the following services, treatment of disease, disorder or injury, diagnostic and screening procedures, surgical procedures, management of supply of blood and blood derived products and family planning to adults and children.

Services were provided to patients who were self-funding, those covered by private medical insurance and to NHS patients who had been referred by their GP or who had booked via the NHS “choose and book” service.

During our inspection we spoke with 35 staff including hospital leaders, ward staff theatre staff, preoperative assessment staff, pharmacy staff, administration staff and housekeepers.

We assessed all quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions and have combined the scores for these areas to give an overall rating. We rated the service as good overall.

However, the service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. This was a breach of Regulation 17 (1)(a), good governance. Processes to manage medication were not always in place. Record keeping for controlled drugs (CDs) was not always done in line with national guidance, which meant that corrections could not be read clearly. Paper private prescriptions were used on the wards, but record keeping was not consistent with other areas of the hospital, and this meant that some private prescriptions could not be accounted for.

Allergy sensitivity was not always recorded, and vital details were missed on a medication history that we reviewed. Medicines were not always prescribed on paper charts according to local guidance. ‘When required’ medicines were not always prescribed completely, often missing indications and maximum doses. Audits on medicines handling did not identify issues found on this inspection.

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. However, staff did not always manage medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained the same. This meant patients were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

Effective:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those who were important to people and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained the same. This meant patients were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

Caring:

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

At our last inspection we rated this key question as outstanding. At this inspection we have rated it as good. This meant patients were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

Responsive:

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained the same. This meant patients were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

Well-led:

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

However, the service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. This was a breach of Regulation 17 (1)(a), good governance. Processes to manage medication were not always in place. Record keeping for controlled drugs (CDs) was not always done in line with national guidance, which meant that corrections could not be read clearly. Paper private prescriptions used on the wards, but record keeping was not consistent with other areas of the hospital, and this meant that some private prescriptions could not be accounted for.

Allergy sensitivity was not always recorded, and vital details were missed on a medication history that we reviewed. Medicines were not always prescribed on paper charts according to local guidance. ‘When required’ medicines were not always prescribed completely, often missing indications and maximum doses. Audits on medicines handling did not identify issues found on this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained the same. This meant patients were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People's experience of this service

Patients, family or carers were positive about the staff treating them with warmth and kindness and providing effective care and treatment. People said they did not feel anxious about raising concerns. They said they were seen quickly and felt cared for, listened to, and fully informed of the treatment options.

Records showed patients were seen promptly, and they felt staff were on hand if they needed them for help or support. We spoke with 6 patients, they were all positive about their experience and said they did not feel anxious about raising concerns.

Staff worked collaboratively with patients assessing risk and to develop personalised care and treatment approaches.

Patients experienced a non-judgmental approach to their care and were treated in an inclusive and equitable manner.