The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Spire Tunbridge Wells Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Fordcombe Road, Fordcombe, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN3 0RD (01892) 740047

Provided and run by:
Spire Healthcare Limited

All Inspections

26th, 27th July and 08th August 2016

During a routine inspection

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The overall leadership was good. The senior management team were visible, had good oversight of governance and continually strove for improvement. They rewarded good performance by the staff and fostered a culture of transparency and openness. This was also reflected in local leadership at departmental level.

  • The cleanliness of the hospital was good and this was reflected in their infection control policies, processes and infection rates.

  • Staffing levels were well monitored and provided a high standard of care despite challenges in recruitment. Staff turnover was low and was mainly due to staff progressing to more senior roles.

  • Mortality rates were low

  • The hospital took a lot of care in monitoring nutrition and hydration levels. It was evident that the care taken to ensure that patients who had a diminished appetite, due to being unwell, were provided with alternatives to ensure that nutrition was good to facilitate their recovery.

  • Spire Healthcare is finalising with NHS England its approach to report Workforce Equality Standard (WRES) data. The hospital was able to provide local information to demonstrate it reviews the ethnicity of its workforce.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The hospital had systems and processes in place that supported staff in providing a good service.

  • The catering department met both patients and staff individual requirements, and visited with patients daily.

  • The leadership from the senior management team was described as approachable, available and visible.

  • Patients and their families were cared for by kind and compassionate staff who went out of their way to support them.

  • Two-hourly patient “quality rounds” on the ward, led by the nurse-in-charge.

  • Regular scenario-based training to ensure staff responded appropriately to emergency situations was undertaken.

However, there were also areas of where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Ensure that if a patient declines a chaperone this is recorded in the patient’s notes for inpatients, in line with hospital policy.

  • Consider making the layout of some rooms on the ward more accessible for wheelchair users.

  • Consider providing training to ward staff to help them better meet the needs of physically disabled patients.

  • Consider using observational hand hygiene audits to monitor hand washing.

  • Ensure dedicated hand hygiene sinks in patient bedrooms are included when carrying out refurbishment in accordance with the Department of Health’s Health Building Note 00-09.

  • The hospital should progress Joint Advisory Group (JAG) accreditation for endoscopy services.

18 February 2014

During a routine inspection

In order to undertake this inspection we talked with eleven patients a variety of services provided at the Spire, and talked with eleven members of staff as well as a member of the hospital management team. The patients we spoke with came from medical, surgical and the outpatients departments, as did the staff we talked with during the inspection. We viewed seven medical records and care plans, looked at files and training records, as well as the service's policies and procedures and quality assurance measures.

We found that patients needs were assessed and treatment and care was planned to enable their individual needs to be met safely and effectively. We saw that patients responded positively to staff. We were told, 'I've nothing but good to say, I'm well looked after, the staff are excellent'. Another patient told us, 'The staff have been wonderful, it's very good care'.

Patients were protected against the risks associated with medication because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There was sufficient staff with suitable skills and experience to meet the needs of patients. Patients told us staff were kind courteous and knowledgeable and felt that there was enough staff to meet their needs. Staff informed us that they felt staffing levels were appropriate for their clinical area.

Patients were supported by staff that were supported to deliver care and treatment safely. Staff received appropriate professional development. We found that staff received regular supervision.

The service was regularly monitored. We found appropriate systems for gathering, recording and evaluating accurate information about the quality and safety of the care and its outcomes.

24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that patients received treatment and care from well trained, polite and knowledgeable staff in clean, comfortable and safe surroundings. People spoke very positively about their experiences of care and treatment at the hospital. Comments included: "The staff are very efficient here and you couldn't wish for anything better'.

Medical records contained comprehensive and detailed information to enable staff to give the required treatment and care. We found that people were asked to consent before treatment was given.

We found that the organisation supported staff with reliable systems for supervision, appraisal and provided them with appropriate training enabling them to deliver care and treatment to meet patients' needs.

We found that there were robust systems in place for the up keep of the premises, general maintenance and for ongoing refurbishment. We reviewed how the organisation responded to incidents and complaints and found that complaints had been thoroughly investigated, and responded to appropriately.

The hospital was aware that the environment housing the onsite decontamination services was not currently compliant with established building guidelines and was in the process of updating these facilities to meet these criteria. We found that there was a robust risk management process in place with a programme of regular audit to ensure that reusable medical devices were cleaned and decontaminated, protecting patients from risk of infection.

1 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke to people using the services and staff in each of the areas that we visited. People who use the service generally felt that they were looked after well and that staff were attentive and caring.

Comments from patients about their experience included 'the attention is very good, the place is nice compared to others', 'It's great you are treated like a human being rather than like cattle', 'It's great I feel extremely looked after' and 'Superb. Satisfied with everything including the food'. 'Nurses are excellent, everyone has been really nice and nothing is too much trouble'.

People told us that their privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. Comments received were 'Everyone always knocks before coming into the room', and 'When I have needed to get changed staff have said I will give you five minutes and then I will come back'.

People told us that the level of cleanliness was very good and that the wards were swept and cleaned on a regular basis. People had seen that beds and equipment were cleaned between uses.

People said that hand cleaning was carried out by staff in advance of any care being provided. Comments received about the cleanliness of the hospital included 'Absolutely spot on', 'Very clean staff gel their hands when coming into the room and when leaving the room'.