SpaMedica Truro

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The evidence showed an excellent standard. The provider was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their care and support. Patients told us staff listened to them and communicated with them appropriately, in a way they could understand. A patient told us everyone has been, “kind and friendly.” Staff took the time to understand the needs of the patients.

Feedback from patients who used the service and those close to them was positive about the way staff treated them. We observed staff taking time to explain the treatment to patients, giving them time to ask questions. Patients told us the surgeon had involved them in the decision around their care and treatment and had explained the risks involved to them. Patients were escorted around the building by staff, and their welfare was constantly checked on during theatre.

Staff were observed respecting patients’ dignity. People were assured information about them was treated confidentially, and they knew staff respected their privacy. Staff made sure conversations were not overheard. Patient records were kept secure. We observed interactions between patients and staff where staff ensured patients dignity was maintained. There were screens between patients’ chairs in the ward area.

Support continued after discharge with a dedicated phoneline for any patient queries regarding their treatment.

We looked at feedback on external feedback sites, although this is for the company as a whole, there were specific positive examples of care regarding this location, a patient stated, “how respectful and empathetic everyone was.”

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service was fully accessible to wheelchair users and patients whose mobility may be restricted. Signage throughout the premises was clear. The service had hot and cold drinks available and biscuits for patients’ post-surgery. If there were long delays to appointments or surgery, the staff provided patients with food.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff told us appointments were offered to reflect all needs.

The service booked interpreters for patients who required them. Information was available on noticeboards and in leaflets. However, information was not always provided in all formats for patients who were partially sighted and were not able to read information displayed or in information leaflets. However, staff said they could print information in large font.

Assistance dogs were able to support patients undergoing surgery. Although unable to go into theatre, they were allowed in the pre-admission area, there was clear guidance for staff to follow in their Infection Prevention Policy regarding this.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients told us they were fully informed of all the treatment options available to them.

During the assessment we observed staff treating people as individuals. We saw staff clearly explaining in a way people could understand, what was going to happen next. People using the service told us they understood their care and treatment.

Staff received training in equality and diversity to support people as individuals.

The evidence showed a good standard The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were alert to patient’s needs and took the time to observe, communicate and engage people in discussions about their immediate needs. All patients had a pre-operative assessment where the nurses discussed immediate needs.

A booklet of the patient journey was available to all patients. Patients were offered a chaperone. There was CCTV throughout the main patient areas so staff in reception could observe the waiting areas and could act promptly if needed.

We observed staff supporting patients responding to their immediate needs. Patients also stated they felt their needs were listened to, an example was one patient who was in pain said they had been offered pain relief promptly.

The evidence showed a shortfall in this area. Although the service promoted the wellbeing of their staff, some staff stated they had not felt supported to always deliver person-centered care.

We spoke to several staff, who shared they did not feel valued or supported by the organisation. Staffing issues, such as sickness, had caused stress amongst some of the staff team. Some staff stated they did not feel positive around the working hours and were working over their time. We spoke to senior managers who advised staffing was always in line with their Clinical Safer Staffing Levels Standard Operating Procedure which had been taken from national guidance.

Staff covered other locations as required, and this was in their contract of employment. We found 6.7% of clinical activity was covered by other sites over the last 6 months, mostly registered nurses.

The provider was already aware of these concerns and had conducted an investigation prior to our inspection, with a detailed performance plan implemented.

The manager stated they had an ‘open door policy’ and some of the staff we spoke with said they felt they could raise concerns or discuss any personal difficulties.

All staff had access to an application which gave access to a range of services such as core and optional benefits, employee discounts and wellbeing resources. The provider recognised staff success within the service and had the Employee of the Month, Hero notifications and Quarterly awards. There were workforce champions and the employee forum. The service had policies and procedures to support staff’s well-being.