- Independent hospital
Spire Portsmouth Hospital
Assessment report published 10 August 2026
Contents
Ratings - Surgery
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 13 patients using the service. We also reviewed patient feedback data from the service. Patients were overwhelming positive and told us staff treated them with warmth and kindness.
Patients confirmed their pain was well managed and they were supported to move around as much as possible after their operation. Patients said call bells were answered quickly, and they could get assistance when needed. Patients told us they were given time to ask questions about their procedure and staff had checked they understood what they were having done.