Spire South Bank 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

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.

The service had set clear standards for staff to deliver consistent, responsive, and personalised care. Care was tailored to meet individual and community needs, prioritising inclusivity, and accessibility. We saw evidence of detailed care plans reflected responsiveness to diverse requirements. Translation services and communication aids were available. People were encouraged to provide feedback, ideas, and complaints, which were used for learning and improvement.

This is the first rated assessment for this key question. This key question has been rated 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 service made usually sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

The outpatient department placed people at the centre of their care and treatment. Staff worked in partnership with patients to understand their individual needs, preferences, values and circumstances, ensuring care was tailored to achieve the best possible outcomes.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. For example, reasonable adjustments were made for patients with physical disabilities, sensory impairment, learning disabilities and autism. This included offering accessible consultation rooms, hearing loop facilities, interpreter services, easy-read information, longer appointment times where appropriate and quieter waiting areas for patients who found busy environments challenging.

The department considered the needs of patients requiring additional support during transitions of care. Reasonable adjustments were made for patients with disabilities, communication needs, learning disabilities or other individual requirements to ensure they could safely access and navigate services. Accessible toilets were available in all departments and were equipped with nurse call buzzers and emergency pull cords.

Patients' cultural, religious and personal preferences were respected throughout their outpatient journey. Staff sought to understand what was important to each individual and, where possible, accommodated requests relating to appointment scheduling, same-sex clinicians or chaperones, communication preferences and the involvement of family members, carers or advocates. Patients were always treated with dignity and respect, and their privacy was maintained during consultations and examinations.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

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. For example, the outpatient department delivered coordinated, person-centred care that promoted continuity throughout the patient's journey. Services were organised to ensure patients received timely assessment, treatment and follow-up, with effective communication between multidisciplinary teams and external healthcare providers where required.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. We reviewed 10 patient records and found evidence that care was planned, coordinated and documented appropriately. Records demonstrated clear clinical assessments, treatment plans and follow-up arrangements. Where patients required ongoing care, clinicians documented the next steps, including planned reviews, investigations and onward referrals. Records also showed that patients were informed about their treatment plan and knew how to access advice if their condition changed.

Staff worked collaboratively across specialties and with diagnostic services to ensure patients experienced seamless care. Where required, referrals were made to other consultants, allied health professionals or community services to support patients' ongoing health needs. Discharge information and clinic letters were completed promptly and shared with patients' GPs and other relevant healthcare professionals to promote continuity of care.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

Patients told us they understood the next steps following their appointment and knew who to contact if they had questions or concerns. Information provided following consultations supported patients to manage their condition and access further care when required.

Staff demonstrated effective communication and teamwork throughout the patient pathway. There was evidence of appropriate information sharing between clinical teams while maintaining patient confidentiality. This supported safe, coordinated care and reduced the risk of fragmented services.

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

The outpatient department ensured patients received clear, timely and accessible information to support them throughout their care and treatment. Information was provided in a way that enabled patients to understand their condition, make informed decisions and access services confidently.

Patients received information before, during and after their appointments. Appointment letters included details of the clinic location, directions, parking, accessibility, and any preparation required for investigations or procedures. Where appropriate, patients were provided with written information explaining diagnostic tests, treatment options, expected outcomes and aftercare requirements.

Information was available in a range of accessible formats to meet individual communication needs. Interpreter services, translation services, hearing loop facilities and easy-read information could be accessed when required. Staff recognised when patients required additional support to understand information and adapted their communication accordingly. Patients were also supported to involve family members, carers or advocates in discussions where this reflected their wishes.

Following consultations, patients received clear information about the next steps in their care, including follow-up appointments, investigations, medication advice and who to contact if they required further assistance. Contact details for the outpatient department and relevant clinical teams were provided to enable patients to seek advice if their condition changed or they had questions after leaving the clinic.

We reviewed 10 patient records and found evidence that discussions about diagnosis, treatment options, consent and follow-up arrangements were documented consistently. Records demonstrated that patients had been provided with information appropriate to their clinical needs and that clinicians had recorded opportunities for patients to ask questions and participate in shared decision-making.

All patient records were handled safely and securely. Records would be kept on site, these would be requested from the medical records department, and they would be delivered to the department. Staff within outpatients were aware of the importance of keeping patient information confidential staff had completed training in Information Governance.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health. We asked if information was available in alternative languages and were shown how required leaflets could be produced. Information was also available on the services website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

The service generally 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. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about treatment plans.

The outpatient department actively listened to patients and involved them in decisions about their care, treatment and the development of the service. Staff encouraged patients to share their views, preferences and concerns and used this information to deliver person-centred care and improve the patient experience.

Staff sought feedback from patients through a range of mechanisms, including the Friends and Family Test, patient satisfaction surveys, compliments and informal feedback following appointments. Feedback was reviewed regularly through governance and quality meetings to identify trends, share learning and implement service improvements. Where improvements had been identified, action plans were developed and monitored to ensure changes were embedded into practice.

Patients knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint if they were dissatisfied with any aspect of their care. Information about the complaints process was available within the outpatient department and included in patient information where appropriate. Patients could raise concerns verbally, in writing or electronically, and staff were able to explain how complaints would be managed.

Spire healthcare worked within the ISCAS code of practice for complaints management. All complaints should be acknowledged within three working days and responses should be sent to the complainant within 20 working days of acknowledgement or holding letter. Which we saw evidence of.

Complaints or concern were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in a timely manner, complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way. We reviewed 5 formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the time frame set out in the local policy. There were 14 formal complaints closed between the 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026 in relation to the outpatient’s department.

Staff viewed complaints and concerns as opportunities to improve the quality of care rather than solely as incidents to be managed. Themes and trends from complaints, compliments and patient feedback were monitored alongside other quality indicators to inform continuous service improvement.

Patients were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. Where improvements were required as a result, patients had the opportunity to be involved in shaping the solutions and measuring the impact. For example, following feedback that some patients found it difficult to understand what would happen after their appointment, the service revised its outpatient information leaflets and follow-up letters to provide clearer explanations of next steps, expected timescales for results and contact details for further advice. The revised information was reviewed through subsequent patient feedback, which demonstrated improved understanding and satisfaction with communication.

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

The site provided equitable access by providing dedicated disabled parking, accessible toilets and baby changing facilities. Wheelchairs were available in the entrance to buildings and we observed staff assisting people that had mobility issues and used mobility aids. Hearing loop facilities, wheelchair-accessible consultation rooms and accessible toilet facilities were available throughout the outpatient department. Translator services were available and very well signposted within the department.

Reasonable adjustments were made to ensure patients with protected characteristics or additional needs could access services equitably. Interpreter and translation services were available for patients whose first language was not English. Accessible information, including large-print and easy-read formats, could be provided on request. Patients with learning disabilities, autism or cognitive impairment were offered additional support, including longer appointment times where appropriate and the involvement of carers or advocates in line with the patient's wishes.

Patients were referred through clearly defined pathways and appointments were allocated according to clinical need. Referral processes supported timely access to outpatient consultations, diagnostic investigations and follow-up appointments. The service monitored waiting times and clinic capacity to identify delays and took action where necessary to maintain access to care.

Patients who did not attend appointments were followed up in line with organisational policy. Staff reviewed non-attendance to identify potential barriers to access and took appropriate action, such as offering alternative appointment dates or methods of communication where appropriate. This helped reduce the risk of patients experiencing delays in diagnosis or treatment.

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 (NHS patients via the choose and book). Where there were large waiting lists, these were monitored and reduced over time.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Staff planned patients’ discharge carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs. Staff liaised with GP’s and community services when patients had complex needs.

Patients told us they found the service easy to access and felt their individual needs were recognised and accommodated. They described staff as responsive and willing to make reasonable adjustments to support their attendance and participation in care.

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 a delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes.

We saw information which showed patient feedback was reviewed and included protected characteristics where data was available, alongside complaints, compliments, Friends and Family Test results and patient satisfaction surveys. The service used this information to identify themes or disparities in experience and implemented improvement actions where required. There was no evidence of persistent inequalities in patient experience or access to outpatient services, and governance records demonstrated that equality, diversity and inclusion remained a standing consideration when reviewing quality and service performance.

Staff had completed training in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion supporting staff to recognise when individuals might face barriers in communication, understanding or engagement and tailor their approach accordingly.

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.

Care was delivered in a personalised way, with staff taking account of patients' clinical, cultural, communication and personal needs when planning and delivering care. Reasonable adjustments were made where required to enable patients to participate fully in consultations and make informed decisions about their treatment.

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 plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer 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.

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.

Discharge summaries were given to the patient to take home and for their GP and follow up appointments were made before discharge.