SpaMedica Truro

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 provider 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.

Patients who used services were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it centred around them and their needs. Patients understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided.

The service was fully accessible to patients with limited mobility or in a wheelchair. A hearing loop was provided. The service also offered free complimentary patient transport. Patients we spoke with who had used this service were very complimentary about it.

Patients we spoke with were all very positive about the staff and said the staff had met their needs.

Booking for the service was managed so there was flexibility and choice to suit patients and their needs. We spoke to a patient who had needed to move their appointment and had found this easy to do with minimal delay to the new appointment.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. The staff communicated with the community optometrists and patients GPs both pre- and post-surgery to ensure there was continuity of care.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was a lot of information available on the notice boards around the hospital. This included information about the staff ‘champions’ for different specialisms. There was also a folder demonstrating the patient’s journey. Staff explained they could get leaflets in larger font, though there were no leaflets in braille.

Patients were sent relevant information with their booking letter. This included important information about what to bring on the day and to advice regarding parking. Patients were advised they would not be able to drive following surgery. We observed patients being provided with written information following their surgery.

The website was detailed and easy to navigate. It provided a detailed video walk through the hospital, demonstrating the pathway the patient will undertake. It also explained the various diagnostic tests and surgery as well as aftercare.

The patients we spoke with all explained that communication prior to attendance was very good. They had received emails and text reminders of their upcoming appointment. One patient stated the information was in an easy-to-read format.

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

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. All patients we spoke with were happy with their care but knew how to complain if they were not. We noted there was a copy of the complaints procedure in the reception. The provider received 16 complaints over the last 12 months. The manager shared feedback from complaints with staff at team meetings. Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement.

Patients were all asked to provide feedback at their post operative check. This was monitored weekly to ensure no patients were missed. If a patient was missed, they would be contacted by one of the patient coordinators. A recent patient survey sent out came back 100% positive response rate.

In one of the waiting areas there was a ‘You said, we did’ poster. Patients had raised issues in regard to delays for clinics and issues around parking. They demonstrated they had listened to these concerns and taken relevant action where possible.

The evidence showed an excellent standard. The provider was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured patients could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them. Patients were referred to SpaMedica by their opticians or by their GP. The service had clear exclusion criteria and accepted the majority of patients but would not accept bariatric or patients who require sedation. Both of these were supported at other SpaMedica locations.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible and timely. NHS patients were treated within an average of 7 weeks, which was better than the NHS 18-week referral to treatment time. Patients we spoke with commented they had only waited a short time (average 2-3 weeks) for their first appointment and were very impressed with the service.

Although parking for patients was not available, there was a drop off area with local pay and display parking nearby. The provider offered a free door-to-door transport service for those who needed it. The patient would need to be able to access the transport independently. Patients that we spoke with who had used it, said this was excellent.

There was an emergency support line for all patients to call 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

To address the shortfall of local optometrists, they offered a remote slit lamp consultation so patients could receive the same level of consultation when there was not an optometrist onsite.

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.

The provider had policies to support the effective delivery of the applicable equality and human rights legislation. They had mandatory training for staff which included equality, diversity, learning disability and autism as well as sensory impairment. This ensured all staff have the right skills to support all patients.

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.

Patients we spoke with felt the information they were given was clear and accurate and provided in a way they could understand. Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan for the future. Patients all had personalised care and treatment plans to suit their needs.

Staff worked well together as an effective multidisciplinary team throughout the patient journey from the initial referral to the pre-operative assessment and throughout the patient’s surgery.