Spire Southampton Hospital

Updated 18 July 2025

Date of assessment: 26th February 2025.

Spire Southampton Hospital is an independent hospital located in the Shirley Warren area of the city. Spire Healthcare Limited operates this service. The hospital opened in 2007 and was registered with CQC in 2010. The hospital primarily serves the communities of South Hampshire. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area and also accepts international referrals for some complex surgeries. Patients are self-funded, insurance funded or funded by the NHS through contractual agreements to carry out NHS work. During the period of 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024 the service undertook around 12,500 procedures. Of these procedures 81% were privately funded and 19% for the NHS. This is higher when compared with the average figure for all other locations in England, at 65%.The operating theatres were in use 6 days a week. The hospital has 67 inpatient beds provided across four inpatient wards, a critical care unit and day care unit. There are 6 operating theatres, an endoscopy suite and a cardiac catheter lab. The outpatient department includes 16 consulting rooms, three treatment rooms and a minor operations suite.

Updated 3 February 2025

Spire Southampton Hospital is an independent hospital located in the Shirley Warren area of the city. Spire Healthcare Limited operates this service. The hospital opened in 2007 and was registered with CQC in 2010. The hospital primarily serves the communities of South Hampshire. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area and also accepts international referrals for some complex surgeries. Patients are self-funded, insurance funded or funded by the NHS through contractual agreements to carry out NHS work. During the period of 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024 the service undertook around 12,500 procedures. Of these procedures 81% were privately funded and 19% for the NHS. This is higher when compared with the average figure for all other locations in England, at 65%.The operating theatres were in use 6 days a week. The hospital has 67 inpatient beds provided across four inpatient wards, a critical care unit and day care unit. There are 6 operating theatres, an endoscopy suite and a cardiac catheter lab. The outpatient department includes 16 consulting rooms, three treatment rooms and a minor operations suite.

Date of assessment: 25th February - 30 April 2025

We reviewed this service due to not having a recent inspection and concerns raised regarding leadership and culture. We also undertook an online staff feedback survey for staff in the surgical workforce.

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and information regarding investigations was shared to all staff. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and were mostly well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

Effective:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people's communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people's care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people's health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

Caring:
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. The service supported staff wellbeing

Responsive:
People were always involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were actively involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Well-led:
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were mostly visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff in most areas felt supported to give feedback, where it was identified this could be improved senior leaders worked hard to improve this. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The service worked with the local community to always deliver the best possible care. The service encouraged the community to shape care and were always receptive to new ideas. There was a positive culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

Updated 26 November 2019

Medical services were a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

The service provided elective endoscopy, interventional cardiology procedures and oncology services.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

Updated 26 November 2019

Children and young people’s services were a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring and responsive and well led.

Updated 13 September 2021

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. The care and treatment provided by the critical service supported very effective outcomes for cardiac surgery. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of the community they served, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Some staff were not clear about the application of the Mental Capacity Act in the critical care setting.
• Although patient records were complete, signed and dated, the name of the staff member completing the entry was not always legible.
• There were shortfalls in the environment of the unit, which had an impact on equipment storage, relatives’ facilities, and meant sharing a sluice with the recovery area.

Updated 13 September 2021

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well.
• Staff provided good care to patients. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of the communities it served, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People accessed the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for a diagnostic procedure.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However

• The service managed incidents, but did not always share lessons from them in a way that gave assurance staff had reviewed it.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring and responsive, and well led.

Updated 26 November 2019

Outpatients were a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive and well led. We did not rate effective.