Optimax Laser Eye Clinics - Southampton

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’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 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.

Care planning was person centred with the needs and preferences of the patient as the focus. When a patients’ condition changed and delayed planned surgical treatment, staff communicated with and worked with patients to resolve this.

Bookings for the service were managed centrally by the provider, this ensured patients could attend the service best suited to their needs and location.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Patients accessed the service through a range of options, including self-referral. The service also accepted referrals from community ophthalmologists who had assessed patients but could not provide care or treatment required. The service provided financial support options to enable wider access to potential patients. There were a range of finance options available.

When patients needed additional support and care, staff ensured patients were referred to the appropriate specialist service. If patients required specialist care like a vitreoretinal referral, staff submitted referrals promptly. The service audited and monitored onward specialist referrals by ensuring these were centrally reported.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. For patients who followed a standard pathway and required no further care or treatment, their clinical information was handed over to their GP and community optometrist if they consented to this. This supported continuity of care across services.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Written information about care and treatment was only available in standard print format and in English. Additionally, patient information guides provided limited meaningful information about risks and benefits of different types of treatment. However, aftercare booklets shared detailed information about what the patient might expect while recovering from their procedure. This also included when to call for help, if their condition deteriorated.

Staff we spoke with were not always knowledgeable about how to access translation and interpretation services. However, the service had access to an independent professional interpreter. Following the first onsite assessment, senior leaders made improvements to the processes for interpreting and translation services supporting informed consent. This was made available for an additional fee depending on the type of translation or interpretation needed.

Communications about fees were open and transparent, in line with marketing and advertising standards.

The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas and provided this information on the website. All patients were provided with information on how to give feedback or make a complaint. Patients received information about how and when to ask for help following their procedure.

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.

All patients we spoke to were happy with their care but knew how to complain if they were not. The complaints procedure was displayed in the waiting room for patients to read. We saw that there were forms on raising concerns in the main waiting area and in the outpatients waiting room. Information on how to make a complaint was also available on their website. The complaint procedure outlined the stages of the complaint process.

The service received 4 complaints between June 2025 and 2026. Complaints were responded to in line with the services’ own policy and expected response times. Most complaints were due to patients being dissatisfied with the visual outcome, but these were identified as known potential outcomes of surgery.

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 service was designed to be accessible for patients with additional needs. All areas could be accessed step-free and there was an accessible, gender-neutral toilet available. The service had a hearing loop to support patients with hearing impairment. Staff undertook disability awareness and inclusion training.

However, the service was not fully accessible for all bariatric patients due to some equipment limitations. Patients who needed this were offered treatment at another location which met their needs fully.

Between June 2025 and 2026, 14.8% of treatments were cancelled. Of these, most were cancelled by the patient, and less than half were cancelled by staff. Additionally, 5.6% of refractive eye surgery procedures were for follow up procedures, mostly for LASIK or LASEK retreatment.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible and timely.

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 and leaders considered information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and looked at ways to improve this. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide tailored care, support and treatment in response to this. The service had an equality impact assessment tool to assess whether policies promoted equality for all patients and staff. The tool was used during the development and review of provider policies.

However, it was not clear if the service collected data on protected characteristics. Therefore, the service was unable to assess whether these areas impacted on patient experiences or outcomes.

There were no complaints shared with us that identified protected characteristics as a potential factor.

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, including at the end of their life.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan for the future. Patients had personalised care and treatment plans to suit their needs based on their personal hobbies and lifestyle.

The service used clinical suitability guidelines to identify patients suitable for surgery. Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment on a case-by-case basis. Staff ensured all relevant people were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. When any treatment was changed or withdrawn, staff were supported by existing process to manage and communicate this openly.