Spire Portsmouth Hospital

Updated 10 August 2026

Spire Portsmouth Hospital is an established, purpose-built private healthcare facility located in Bartons Road, Havant—approximately 10 miles from Portsmouth, UK. It provides a range of planned medical and surgical treatments for insured, self-pay, and NHS patients. The operational activity is split at privately funded 83% and 17% NHS.

The service is a dedicated elective care hospital. Because it handles no accident and emergency (A&E) cases, patient attendances are categorised into planned outpatient appointments, day-case surgeries, and overnight inpatient admissions. The main activity at this location was surgical procedures.

The on-site facilities include an endoscopy suite, three operating theatres (two with laminar airflow) an outpatient department and diagnostic imaging department offering plain X-ray, ultrasound, mammography, MRI and CT scans. The hospital operates 50 beds across 2 wards. Physiotherapy treatment is offered as an inpatient and outpatient service in its own physiotherapy suite of gym and treatment areas. There is an accredited sterile services department and pathology laboratory on site. In the time period April 2025-May 2026 the service was attended by 22,500 patients.

We undertook an assessment of this service on the 12 & 13 May 2026. At this inspection, we looked at Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, and Outpatient assessment service groups. We undertook this inspection due to an aged rating and in line with our inspection priorities.

We rated this service as Good.

We saw that previous regulatory breaches have been resolved in full. The joint surgical preparation area was no longer in use, and this reduced any risk of cross infection. All theatres and areas used for surgical preparation now had Ultra Clean Ventilation (UCV) systems in place.

Updated 16 January 2026

We inspected this service on 12 and 13 May 2026[SD1] . We assessed 33 quality statements across the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The assessment was carried out due to aged rating.

Spire Portsmouth Hospital is operated by Spire Healthcare Limited. The diagnostic imaging service performs CT (Computerised Tomography), MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), Ultrasound and X-ray scans to diagnose conditions.

The quality of care and treatment of children aged between 16 and 18 years of age undergoing diagnostic imaging procedures was not reviewed as part of the assessment of diagnostic imaging.

Safe

The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience in the departments to ensure high quality care and treatment.

Managers made sure staff received training, but not all staff received regular appraisals. Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients. Most of the equipment was clean and well-maintained.

Effective

Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment was based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patient’s comfort was observed throughout the procedures

Where necessary staff assessed and managed patients nutritional and hydration needs. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

Caring

Patients were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff responded to patients in a timely way. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions from allied health professionals.

Responsive

Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided information which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback, knew who to speak with if they had concerns and were confident the service took their concerns seriously. The service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback. Patients were involved in making decisions about their care and understood the need for the recommended diagnostic procedures. The service supported staff wellbeing.

Well-led

Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, 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. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders had oversight of the quality of service being delivered through governance and risk management systems. However, we identified some areas where governance was not always effective. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.

Updated 16 January 2026

The assessment took place on 12 and 13 May 2026. It was a fully comprehensive assessment, carried out because the service’s previous rating was aged. This assessment was required to ensure the current quality and safety of the service were accurately reflected.

Our overall rating of Outpatients at Spire Portsmouth has remained Good.

Safe

We rated the service as good because staff continued to provide care that was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People received support from staff who understood their needs and delivered care in a consistent and person‑centred way.

Effective

Staff had the skills and knowledge they needed, however there was evidence of challenges relating to effective teamwork and communication. Systems and processes helped protect people from harm, and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Care was delivered in line with good practice guidance, and people were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Caring

People’s care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs, enabling staff to provide coordinated and personalised support. Staff treated people with kindness and respected their dignity, and feedback from those using the service was generally positive about the quality of care provided.

Responsive

The service responded well to people’s concerns and worked in partnership with other agencies when needed.

Well-led

Leaders promoted an open and inclusive culture. Long term managerial absence meant oversight of the service was not always managed well. Staff did not always feel supported but felt able to raise issues. However, patient safety was maintained through regular safety checks and clinical audits.

Updated 7 October 2025

We inspected this service on 12-13 May 2026 due to an aged rating.

The main activity at this location was surgical procedures. Surgical services provided included Orthopaedics, Bariatric surgery, Colorectal surgery, Gastroenterology, & Vascular surgery. There were 2 wards where patients were cared for. The location had 3 operating theatres.

Surgical admissions for the service between May 2025 to April 2026 were split 81% privately funded and 19% NHS. The number of surgical episodes during that period were 5,016. The highest individual procedure by volume was knee replacement surgery at 322 procedures.

The quality of care and treatment of children aged between 16 and 18 years of age undergoing surgical procedures was not reviewed as part of the assessment of surgery.

Our overall rating of Surgery at Spire Portsmouth Hospital has remained Good.

Safe

The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and lessons learned and improvements were identified and shared with staff. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and safe systems of working.

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience in departments, wards and in theatres to ensure high quality care and treatment. Managers made sure staff received training and had regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care.

Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated.

Effective

Patients, and those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment was based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the norm. Patients’ pain was quickly identified and well managed.

Staff assessed patients nutritional and hydration needs, made sure patients had sufficient to eat and drink or alternatives as needed. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

Caring

Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff responded to patients in a timely way. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions and were given access to specialist services, including from allied health professionals.

Responsive

Patients, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided information which patients could understand. Patients were invited to give feedback, knew who to speak with if they had concerns and were confident the service took their concerns seriously.

The service monitored and worked to improve access. The environment was adjusted to meet the needs of people with conditions which could create a barrier to access.

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, staff training and feedback. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

The service supported staff wellbeing.

Well-led

Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, 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.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

Leaders had sound oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems.

Staff with protected characteristics felt supported.

There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.

Updated 7 September 2016

Endoscopy, oncology and the ward areas were visibly clean and there were good infection prevention and control practices to reduce the risk of infection. Patients were risk assessed to make sure only those that were suitable underwent an endoscopy procedure and chemotherapy at the hospital. Staff reviewed patient risks, and patient risks were appropriately monitored during their stay.

Staff had an awareness of safeguarding, and steps to take to prevent abuse from occurring.

Mandatory training compliance ranged from 76% to 95%.

Staff were supported in their role through appraisals, and there was 100% compliance. Staff were encouraged and supported to participate in training and development to enable them to deliver good quality care. Medical staff obtained informed consent from patients prior to endoscopy procedures and chemotherapy.

The services were taking action to meet current evidence based guidance. The endoscopy lead had an action plan in place to drive towards achieving joint advisory guidance (JAG) accreditation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The endoscopy lead following risk assessment, had put current decontamination workflow practises in place, to prevent any adverse impact to patients.

During the inspection, we saw that staff were caring, sensitive to the needs of patients, and compassionate. Patients commented positively about the care provided from all of the endoscopy, oncology, and ward staff. Patients were treated courteously and respectfully. Patients felt well informed and involved in their procedures and care. This included their care after discharge from an endoscopy procedure, a chemotherapy treatment in oncology and on the ward.

The service was responsive to patients in the inclusion criteria, with waiting times of one to four weeks. Care and treatment was coordinated with other providers. The needs of different people were taken into account when planning and delivering services. For example, patients attending the oncology department were asked if they had any special needs, in case these could affect their treatment options or care preferences.

Staff in endoscopy and oncology were clear about the vision and strategy for their services, driven by quality and safety. The staff we spoke with described an open culture and leaders were visible and approachable. There was a governance structure for the endoscopy and oncology leads to report to for concerns/ issues to be discussed.

Updated 7 September 2016

Outpatient areas were clean and that equipment was well maintained. Staffing levels were as planned for safe care. Patient records were available for appointments, and the department had timely access to test results.

There was good multidisciplinary team working. Staff told us there was good support in their role, with appropriate opportunities to develop their skills further.

We observed that staff were caring, compassionate, and treated patients with dignity and respect. Patients told us they felt informed about their treatment and had been involved in decisions about their care.

Hospital staff, together with consultant private secretaries, managed and scheduled clinics appropriately. This ensured good availability of appointments for patients across all specialities.

There were effective governance processes in place. Staff worked well together in teams, and were positive about the leadership of the service at both local and senior level. There was an open culture and staff were encouraged to make suggestions to improve services for patients. The hospital used different methods to gather feedback from patients about their experience.

Although there were appropriate systems in place to keep patients safe and medicines were generally managed safely. In diagnostic imaging a member of staff who was not an authorised health professional was authorised by the hospital to administer contrast media products. When we brought this to the attention of the radiology manager, this practice was ceased immediately.