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

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant patient’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.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia.

Staff at the service had access to provider level information resources to support patients with additional needs. This included patient passports for those with dementia and autism. A patient passport (often called a hospital or health passport) is a document that helps people with learning disabilities, autism, or complex health needs share vital information with healthcare professionals. It ensures staff understand a patient’s communication style, medication, and specific care needs during appointments or hospital stays. For patients who attended the service for NHS treatment they used the patients existing hospital passports.

The service considered and adapted for the needs of patients with dementia, Patients with dementia We saw that wards had dementia resource boxes containing items such as twiddle mitts. Patient notes would also have a ‘forget me not’ sticker and on admission these stickers would be visible next to the patient’s name on the ward board to make all members of staff aware. The service had a Dementia Lead who reviewed any patients identified at pre-assessment, or prior to admission, as living with dementia or experiencing memory loss. The service told us they would add notes to the planning notes, where the patient would then be discussed with all members of the multidisciplinary team. This meant any additional requirements could be planned for.

The service identified staff who would be caring for patients with additional needs before admission and helped patients become familiar with them. This was done through introductions at pre-assessment or by providing photographs of the staff members. Staff told us they always ensured information regarding reasonable adjustments was well known to all staff involved in a patients care. We observed additional requirements being discussed at planning meetings.

There was also information in easy read format such as ‘questions to ask when you go to hospital’, ‘getting the right support’, and ‘patient rights. This meant patients were supported to understand their treatment and were informed. This was supported in patient feedback which highlighted the time staff took to listen, explain procedures and provide emotional support, particularly for anxious patients. If staff were concerned a patient required additional support with their mental health needs, they were able to access support through the local NHS mental health triage team.

Staff told us that anxious patients could visit the department before surgery to meet staff and help reduce any concerns about their treatment. We were given examples of reasonable adjustments made for patients. This included providing an all-female theatre team where requested, turning lights down in recovery, and putting patients first on the list so the recovery area was quieter to provide a calmer environment.

As per Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) guidelines, private or self-pay patients were informed of planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or partially), they were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the services to be provided, including as to the amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible, this was always provided in writing prior to the commencement of the services.

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

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant.

When patients were discharged, electronic communication was sent to a patient’s GP or care home provider detailing the treatment they had received and any ongoing care needs such as medications and community services. The service also recorded all information in a centralised provider system which meant that, should a patient need to attend other locations under the same provider, all information could be accessed immediately.

Leaders told us that all patient transfers, readmissions and surgical site infections were reviewed to identify learning, opportunities for improvement and examples of good practice.

Staff told us they met individual needs by offering flexible appointment times and tailoring care to patients’ preferences, circumstances and cultural requirements.

Choice was supported by providing patients with information about different treatment options and enabling patients to actively participate in decisions about their care pathway, ensuring their values and preferences were always central to the planning and delivery of their care.

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

Throughout all patient areas there was information leaflets available for patients and visitors. Staff had produced information boards with relevant topics such as hospital facilities, healthy eating, dementia care and exercise.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health. We saw information was available in alternative languages and formats such as easy read, large font and braille. Information was also available on the services website and there was a provider level member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

The service policies were available to all staff on the intranet. The service used paper records in the form of booklets which contained clear pathways to follow. This meant all patients records were within the same pathway. For example, the pre-operative assessment, ward care and theatre records were all within the booklet. These were well laid out and clearly demarked each stage of treatment from post operative assessment (POA) through to follow up. This meant all healthcare professionals could follow the patient pathway clearly.

Patients undergoing elective operations had access to information about their condition, treatment, and how best to prepare for surgery. Patients were given links to guidance such as the Royal College of Anaesthetists ‘Preparing for Surgery Fitter Better Sooner’. There were posters and quick response code links to information in outpatient and ward areas. A quick response (QR) code is a barcode that appears in a square pattern and when scanned with a phone camera directs the user to the information.

Patients on an enhanced recovery pathway for joint replacement surgery, such as prosthetic hips, received face-to-face rehabilitation advice from physiotherapy, pharmacy and nursing staff as standard. All patients were supported with physiotherapy guidance and health information related to prevention of Venous thrombus embolism (VTE).

Patients discharged following surgery were given a `We hope you're blooming well' card, which provided contact details for a 24-hour phone number should they feel unwell or have additional questions. Patients were given information about their prescribed medicines, when to call for help, and advised contacting the service if they were admitted to another hospital within 31 days of surgery.

Staff were aware of how to use and store confidential information. However, only 69% of staff had completed information governance training.

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

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Senior staff on ward areas were encouraged to respond to immediate concerns or complaints with a view to resolution. The service had a patient experience lead to monitor and oversee the handling of patient concerns. Patients, their families and carers were provided with information to explain how they could raise a concern and how this would be investigated.

Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. There was a provider level policy on responding to patient complaints and this was in date.

The hospital had a clear policy for complaints management and staff followed this. All complaints were discussed with representatives from all departments in weekly ‘Rapid Response’ meetings. There was also a weekly complaint meeting where all complaints were individually reviewed which was attended by the Hospital Patient Experience Lead, Hospital Director, Director of Clinical Services and Governance Lead. Learning actions from complaints were shared in dedicated meetings, staff briefs and communicated across all staff.

The surgical service received 39 complaints and concerns between 1 May 2025 and 30 April 2026, of which 26 were upheld. Patient complaints were grouped by the area to which they related, such as the ward or main reception. All of these complaints were managed and closed within the timescales set out in the complaints policy. There were no complaints escalated to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) in the 12 months prior to inspection.

The service gave an example of themed complaints leading to changes in process when some administrative functions were moved to an off-site central location. While the change had largely positive outcomes, some patients were negatively affected by administrative errors. In response, weekly meetings were held with the off-site team to strengthen communication and support a “single team” approach across both sites. Themes were used to identify continual improvement and training such as patient booking errors being reduced.

The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards. Where there were large waiting lists, these were monitored and reduced over time.

Through the NHS e-Referral Service, eligible NHS patients can choose to be seen at the service. The hospital holds around 460 to 500 NHS patients on waiting lists at any given time, depending on the specialty. Managers monitored waiting times, where this was necessary and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets.

The hospital staff managed bed occupancy and patient flow well. Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and within national targets and guidance. We reviewed data for on the day cancellations for the previous 3 months. This showed there were 15 on the day cancellations, 8 of which were unavoidable. Of the 7 avoidable cancellations, the most common reasons were patient non-compliance with pre-operative medication instructions. In all instances, there was no physical harm to the patient. The service told us all efforts were made to rebook patients as quickly as possible following cancellation and any medical optimisation that was required.

We heard from preoperative teams that if a patient was cancelled for medical reasons, then they would be referred on to their GP for further investigations either by the Anaesthetist or Consultant. If they had a minor illness such as a cold, they were given reasonable time to recover to ensure the patient was safe to proceed. The consultant would then rebook the patient once they were medically fit.

If a patient’s procedure was cancelled for service-related reasons, the service arranged a new date as soon as possible. This was either on the consultants next available operating list or by providing the consultant with extra theatre space to accommodate the cancellation.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Staff planned patients’ discharge carefully, working together to ensure patients were safe to leave and would be supported with ongoing care. Staff liaised with GP’s and community services when patients had complex needs, and we saw evidence of this.

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

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning and delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes. Staff told us they aimed to provide a positive patient experience by ensuring all care was patient led and tailored for the individual. The service sought out feedback from patients through various channels such as patient forums and listening events.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreting services by telephone.

Staff provided examples of reasonable adjustments made to support patients with additional needs, including those living with dementia or autism. In addition, staff undertook mandatory training that focused solely on Learning Disabilities and Autism. Staff were alert to discrimination and inequality. Staff in theatres provided examples of adjustments they might make for people to ensure equity in experiences, for example, adjusting the theatre recovery environment for people with sensory needs.

Discharge arrangements optimised the outcomes for all patients, including those with protected characteristics. Where necessary, carers and community services were involved to encourage and support a return to the patient’s pre-admission condition.

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

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and future treatment, with the involvement of family members or carers if they wished. Staff discussed health lifestyles for going home and recovery from the patient's operation. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice. Staff worked well together as an effective multidisciplinary team throughout the patient journey from the pre-operative assessment to the patient's discharge. There was input from pharmacists, resident doctors and nursing staff to ensure patients were fit for discharge, and their pain was under control.

The policies and processes within the service ensured patients were treated in line with legal requirements under the human rights framework. The service met the needs of patients where reasonable adjustments were required. The processes ensured patients were not discriminated against, and care and treatment was equitable for all patients who were unable to speak up for themselves.

Patients received a discharge summary on leaving the service, and follow-up appointments were arranged before discharge. Patients who had undergone surgery that altered their body appearance or functions permanently, were provided with access to ongoing support and advice for managing their condition.