Spire South Bank Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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. 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.  

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant patient’s outcomes were consistently good, and patient’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The service made sure patient's care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 5 patient records and found all required documentation had been consistently completed including comprehensive pre-operative assessments. Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. All care plans contained relevant risk assessments such as Venous Thromboembolism (VTE), pregnancy status, mobility, and anaesthetic risks. Care pathways were updated regularly to reflect the patient journey.

Where risks were identified, staff carried out individual risk assessments and put care plans in place. Records showed that risk assessments and care plans were reviewed as people’s needs changed, supported by multidisciplinary working between nursing and physiotherapy staff.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. For example, we saw a physiotherapist providing post operative support which included advice on maintaining wellbeing during recovery.

Patient consent was requested at each stage of the patient journey. People we spoke with told us they felt well informed about expected outcomes and risks.

Staff assessed patients pain and used recognised tools to do so. Staff gave pain relief in line with individual needs and best practice. Records we reviewed demonstrated pain was assessed and analgesia was provided in a timely manner. Patients pain was addressed before they left the operating theatre. The most recent pain relief audits carried out showed 97% compliance. This demonstrated patients’ pain was consistently assessed, acted upon, and reassessed, supporting effective pain management. Patients told us they received pain relief soon after requesting it. They felt their pain was well managed.

The service planned and delivered patient's care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance. All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, and clear references to current national guidelines. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and management newsletters. We saw notice boards displaying up to date guidance for staff.

Surgical pathways were aligned with national guidance including compliance with National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs) and Local Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (LocSSIPs).

Clinical leaders demonstrated oversight of national guidance and best practice standards. For example, staff used a nationally recognised screening tool to monitor patients at risk of malnutrition and used this to inform care planning and delivery. Patients requiring special diets for clinical reasons, were assessed and advice was given. Staff fully and accurately completed patients’ fluid and nutrition charts where needed.

The service worked well across teams and services to support patients. They made sure patients only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care. Staff reported healthy working relations across staff groups between medical and nursing teams. We saw and heard examples of effective team working which was based on mutual respect and trust.

Staff worked across health care disciplines and with other agencies when required to care for patients. For example, the physiotherapist worked alongside nursing and medical staff to support patients’ recovery and mobilisation following surgery.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings where required, to discuss treatment options for individual patients and improve their care. For example, there was a daily huddle for all heads of departments and the senior management team to share any risks with their service. The teams worked together to prepare patients for what to expect post-operatively and when they returned home.

Plans for discharge considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, ongoing care arrangements and expected outcomes. Discharges were planned at an early stage to ensure they were safe and appropriate for the person’s needs. Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care..

The service supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Patients undergoing elective operations had access to information about their condition, their treatment and how best to prepare for surgery. Staff spoke with them about how best to optimise their outcomes after surgery and how to modify their choices to ensure better health.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, patients were provided with information on discharge to reduce the risk of hospital-related blood clots and support their recovery following surgery. Patients who stayed overnight received a follow-up phone call within 24 to 72 hours of discharge, which demonstrated ongoing support and continuity of care. The service provided leaflets outlining how to manage pain following discharge, along with clear contact details should further advice or support be required.

The service monitored patient’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patients themselves.

Staff routinely monitored patients’ health following surgery, including the use of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), which supported the early identification of deterioration and timely clinical response.

Leaders monitored patient outcomes using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) to assess the effectiveness of treatment and patient-reported improvement. Reported outcomes showed high levels of improvement, with most patients experiencing positive health gains following treatment.

The service used outcomes from audits to implement improvements, with the effectiveness reviewed. For example, following an increase in falls, the service introduced a range of measures to reduce risk. These included falls packs, follow-up contact, and enhanced safety huddles with the addition of a traffic light system to identify those most vulnerable.

The service worked with system partners through local forums and safeguarding meetings to support shared learning and identify risks affecting vulnerable groups. This collaborative approach helped strengthen understanding of wider population needs and contributed to joint efforts to address health inequalities across the local system.

The service monitored readmission rates. Between April 2025 to 31 March 2026, there were 8 unplanned re-admissions to an NHS hospital within 31 days of discharge and 2 re-admissions to a Spire Hospital following a surgical procedure. All re-admissions were investigated and classified as low physical harm or no physical harm.

The service told patients about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. However, consent forms were not fully completed, which meant we could not be assured that all patients had been fully informed about the procedure and associated risks before signing. For example, boxes confirming that patients understood the information leaflets and supporting documents, and that they agreed to the procedure described on the consent form, had not been completed.

Staff had the appropriate skills and knowledge to seek consent from people. Staff were clear on how they obtained verbal informed consent and written consent before providing care or treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. Patients were given sufficient information to be able to make informed choices about their care and treatment. This included information about the risks associated with surgery and having anaesthesia.

Staff received Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. They understood relevant consent and decision-making requirements. Staff knew how to access policies were able to gain additional advice if needed. Managers monitored compliance with the MCA. Patients who lacked capacity to consent to procedures were identified during the pre-operative assessment process and this was reassessed throughout their admission.

Patients said they were involved in decision making about their care and treatment. They could describe the risks and benefits they were told about prior to surgery. We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing care or treatment.