Spire Portsmouth Hospital

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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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 evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Care was person centred and was planned with the patient to identify any individual health concerns and avoid any delays in treatment. The multi-disciplinary team worked together to ensure that patients had all the pre-operative screening and information they required.

The service ensured that patients’ needs were met, there was an interpreting service available, and this was well publicised through the staff notice boards. Booking staff told us they highlighted to the ward staff where additional support was required.

Patients and visitors accessed the hospital through an accessible entrance linked to the car park. The reception area was staffed and easy to navigate, with electronic self-check in available. Staff wore name badges and displayed photographs for identification. Patients could access wheelchairs which were positioned at the entrance for immediate use.

Clear signposting guided patients to waiting areas, reception, pharmacy, theatres and imaging. Corridors were wide, uncluttered and suitable for wheelchair use and good lighting to improve visibility. Seating was visibly clean and noticeboards displayed service information and certificates.

Dementia‑friendly resources, quiet spaces and alternative waiting areas supported people who needed adjustments to understand and process information more comfortably.

Parents could use a small children’s area which was located near the entrance with age‑appropriate furniture and fixed toys.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service coordinated care across teams and partner organisations, so people experienced a seamless pathway. Clinicians ran on‑site clinics, and shared‑care arrangements. This meant patients did not have to repeat assessments or travel unnecessarily, supporting continuity of treatment.

Staff reviewed risks and care plans collaboratively through the electronic pre‑operative assessment system. Nurses carried out additional clinical reviews where required. This enabled nurses, anaesthetists and relevant specialists to agree next steps. Further enabling consistent decisions as people moved between outpatient, diagnostic and surgical settings.

Weekly multidisciplinary planning meetings looked ahead to staffing, equipment and anticipated needs, reducing handover gaps and ensuring people saw the right clinician at the right time.

Diagnostics, such as x-rays and blood tests, were integrated into outpatient flows. The service had same‑day appointments to minimise delays and keep investigations within the same episode of care. For people undergoing complex procedures, structured follow‑up was built in, ensuring results, advice and rehabilitation were coordinated.

Oversight of waiting times, including the provision of additional clinics when required, helped preserve continuity with named clinicians and avoided breaks in treatment.

Staff told us they monitored and followed up any patients who did not attend their appointments and rescheduled their appointments promptly to ensure their treatment schedules were not disrupted.

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

Staff provided information to patients in ways they could understand. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard and offered information in formats tailored to individual needs. Staff could access translation and interpretation services, and information leaflets were available in different languages when required.

We saw staff took the time to check patients understood information about their appointments and treatment options. Staff had completed training in General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and confidentiality, and patients understood how their information was used by the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Patients and carers were encouraged to give feedback in a range of accessible ways, including electronic surveys after appointments. We saw posters with a QR code asking for feedback in the department, there was also a box at the entrance for feedback cards. The responses were in the main positive, and patients said staff were kind, friendly and professional. Results were reviewed regularly by managers and shared with teams so improvements could be made. Staff said leaders acted on concerns raised through patient forums and surveys, and changes such as improved communication during appointments and adjustments to clinic processes were made in response to this feedback.

The hospital worked in partnership with people to improve their services. The service had a patient forum where they were able to discuss patient feedback and gain further understanding to make improvements. They benchmarked themselves with other hospitals in the group

Complaints were monitored through the heads of department meeting and governance meetings. Data provided by the service showed 21 complaints had been received during the 6 month period, 1 November 2025 to 30 April 2026. The reasons for complaints were varied, with no overarching themes. All complaints were investigated and responded to.

Compliments were also reviewed to recognise good practice and reinforce positive behaviours across the team.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured equitable access by making all facilities available to patients and visitors, with dedicated disabled parking, accessible toilets and staff on hand to offer assistance when needed.

Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The service had a dementia strategy, a dementia lead and all eligible staff had completed dementia and learning disability/autism training.

Referrals were prioritised by clinical need so patients with the most urgent conditions were seen first, regardless of whether they were NHS or private. NHS waiting lists were checked regularly to ensure no one approached their referral‑to‑treatment breach date, and booking teams scheduled appointments promptly for anyone nearing a breach.

Patients told us they received an appointment in a prompt and timely manner and did not experience long waits when they arrived for their appointment.

Patients had an initial consultation to determine whether they needed surgery, followed by a pre-operative assessment. Staff told us they planned people’s care and treatment in advance, so they did not experience delays in their treatment. The physiotherapy service provided pre-operative advice to patients and ensured they had the right equipment in place on discharge where required.

Managers told us the service had sufficient capacity to meet people’s needs and monitored performance around access to minimise any delays to patients care and treatment.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 had processes to identify any barriers that could disadvantage different groups of people using their service. There was access to interpreters and translation services for patients whose primary language was not English. A multi-faith box with resources for people of different faiths was available for patients, visitors and staff , with a room allocated daily as a quiet space.

The provider promoted a culture where people felt able to share their views openly, and staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. This supported staff to recognise when individuals might face barriers in communication, understanding or engagement, and to tailor their approach accordingly.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy that required staff to provide equitable care and avoid discrimination, including on the basis of protected characteristics.

Staff and leaders listened to people and worked with them to meet the hospital access criteria. There was a multidisciplinary team meeting if there was a concern regarding a person’s mental capacity to consent to treatment. The final decision was escalated to the director of clinical services.

Patients were supported on discharge, the outpatients service provided telephone advice and wound management for patients post-operatively.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Patients were supported to make decisions about their care through informed consent. Staff supported patients by giving clear explanations and ensuring people had time to consider their options. Additionally, the physiotherapy team supported patients pre-operatively and post- operatively to enable them to regain their mobility. The team also offered a wide range of services such pain management and mobility treatments.

When patients had reduced capacity, staff involved safeguarding leads and the wider team to ensure decisions reflected the person’s wishes and best interests.

For patients with complex needs, clinicians worked with relevant specialists to ensure follow‑up care was coordinated, particularly after major procedures. This helped people understand what to expect and plan for the next stage of their recovery in a way that was sensitive, clear and well supported.