Spire Southampton 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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating remains good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

During our onsite inspection, we spoke with patients who told us they had been involved in their care and treatment and involved in decision making. The service told us how pre-operative assessment appointments (POAA) were designed to ensure that all information about patients' needs were considered. In addition to this, if patients wanted to contact the service before their surgery, they could call a dedicated support line to relay any reasonable adjustments or requirements. Patients who had their POAA at an NHS trust, had these documents reviewed by consultants and anaesthetists prior to surgery. This ensured effective handover of person centred care needs and requirements were known well in advance. We saw evidence that there were reasonable adjustments made, so that people with a disability could access and use services on an equal basis to others.

The ward area was designed to meet the needs of patients. Each patient had their own room with a bathroom. Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural, dietary and religious preferences and needs. Staff made sure patients and carers could access interpreters, hearing loops or signers when needed. Information on interpreting services was readily available.

The evidence showed a good standard. Care provision, integration, and continuity means that individuals with diverse needs should experience seamless transitions between healthcare settings. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We spoke with staff who told us how discharge information was sent to patients GPs and where appropriate local healthcare trust to ensure that all information regarding their care was known. This ensured that patients could be followed up where needed. 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 how all patients who were transferred or readmitted to other services, be that an NHS trust or alternative location, this admission would be reviewed to identify if improvements were needed and to also highlight any good practice. This scrutiny was also applied if a patient developed a surgical site infection.

Staff told us they were flexible and accommodating to people with different needs by offering various appointment times to meet individual circumstances, or by tailoring care plans to respect personal preferences and cultural needs. 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 evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients told us they were well informed about their treatment. They knew their treatment plan, what operation they were having and what the next steps were for their recovery. The service supplied treatment pathway information by patient via email. This was available in a wide range of languages from a provider maintained database. For patients that were not digitally aware, this information could also be supplied via post.

Information was tailored to individual need. Patient identifiable information was protected. We observed that white boards in areas accessible to all did not contain identifiable information. All patients had their own rooms which meant discussions about their care were kept private. Although rooms displayed the name of the patient, this was kept to minimum detail.

Throughout all patient areas there were information leaflets available for patients and visitors. Staff had produced information boards with relevant topics such as hospital facilities, mental health support, living well with dementia and blood pressure monitoring.

Information needed to deliver effective care and treatment was available to relevant staff in a timely and accessible way. The service policies were available to all staff via 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 POA through to follow up. This meant all healthcare professionals could follow the patient pathway clearly. Staff were aware of how to use and store confidential information. All staff were required to complete information governance training; 98% of staff in the surgical workforce had completed this.

The hospital submitted data to the Private Healthcare Information Network. They also collected PROMs data for certain surgical procedures, such as hip and knee replacements.

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

Staff used surveys and questionnaires to gather information to enable service improvement. Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. They could make complaints in various ways, verbally, by telephone and in writing by letter or email.

Staff told us they always tried to address complaints or concerns immediately to see if the team could address them. Patients were given details on how to make a complaint if the problem could not be resolved. It was easy for patients to give feedback about the service. There was a feedback survey and patients were encouraged to fill this in.

The hospital had a clear policy for complaints management and staff followed this. There was a monthly governance meeting where complaints were discussed as well as at departmental team meetings. The whole service received 115 complaints and concerns between 1 March 2024 to 28 February 2025, these figures related to the whole service and were not specific to surgery. Of these complaints 2 were escalated to level 2, 1 of which related to a historic procedure. There were no complaints escalated to Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) in the 12 months prior to inspection. ISCAS provides independent adjudication, when required, in complaints from patients who receive treatment from independent healthcare providers. In the 3 months prior to inspection there were a total of 20 complaints. Patient complaints were grouped by the area of complaint, for example, ward area, main reception. All of these complaints were managed and closed within the timescales set out in the complaints policy.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The majority of patient receiving care were privately funded, however the service also supported NHS patient access to treatment, and this was managed through consultation with the local NHS trust. Staff told us they would always offer a range of appointments to suit the patient and that if the date no longer suited they could phone or email the booking team if they wanted to cancel or rearrange this.

People were able to access the service when they needed it and received the right care in line with national standards. Patients mostly were able to have surgery within 2 weeks of it being requested. The service had a weekly theatre utilisation meeting to discuss the theatre cases for the following week. This was attended by a representative from the ward, theatre, patient bookings, pre-operative assessment as well as other team members. This ensured all staff were sighted on the upcoming lists, what equipment was required, what tests were required and enabled staffing to be arranged appropriately. Theatres were open from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday. They ran 1 Saturday list and 1 evening list until 9pm. Staff told us there were no restrictions in accessing patient notes.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

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. In addition the service completed Patient-Led Assessments of the Care Environment (PLACE) assessments with leaders and patients undertaking them. PLACE assessments provide feedback and identify improvement by providing a clear message, directly from patients, about how the environment or services might be enhanced. The assessments involve local people (known as patient assessors) going into hospitals as part of teams to assess how the environment supports the provision of clinical care, assessing such things as privacy and dignity, food, cleanliness and general building maintenance and, more recently, the extent to which the environment is able to support the care of those with dementia or with a disability

Staff were able to provide examples of adaptations for accessibility for patients with Autism and Dementia. In addition, staff undertook mandatory training that focused solely on Learning Disabilities and Autism. Staff demonstrated that they 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.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Pre-assessment staff ensured appointments were planned to meet the needs of patients. We saw that records were updated after each appointment to ensure any discussions between the patient and staff were recorded and any actions that had been agreed were all logged.

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 pain was under control.

The policies and processes in place 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 in place ensured patients were not discriminated against and care and treatment was equitable for all patients who were unable to speak up for themselves.