SpaMedica Solihull

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

Leaders and staff proactively sought ways to address barriers to improve patients’ experience, acted on information and created opportunities to achieve equity. Patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. They provided a service which offered choice, flexibility and continuity of care. There was partnership working to make sure care and treatment met the diverse needs of communities. Patients were encouraged to give feedback, which was acted on and used to deliver improvements.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant patients’ needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

Patients who used services were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it is centred around them and their needs.

Managers planned and organised services, so they met the needs of the local population. Patients were referred by their GP or optometrist. A key part of the service provided was a post-operative assessment. Accredited optometrists provided post-operative care at convenient locations. This meant patients could be seen at their referring opticians. In addition, patients could access a helpline to answer queries about their treatment. The service was flexible, provided choice and ensured continuity of care.

Patients understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. There was a sight support service which offered practical or emotional support to blind people managed by sight support officers.

Patients received the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. Patients were in control of planning their care and support. They highlighted to the service in advance whether they needed mobility support. The service was fully accessible to patients with limited mobility. The service employed a porter who would meet and greet every patient and if required, assist them from the car park into the reception area. Patients told us they felt the porter was very helpful and made them feel welcome.

The service monitored patients’ pain using a score between 1 and 4. They gave patients advice on how to alleviate pain. We observed a patient being discharged. The nurse asked them whether they were in any pain, explained they may have discomfort later in the day and explained what to do if they had pain. If a patient’s pain score was recorded as high, this would automatically alert the managers, and the patient would receive a courtesy call the following day.

The service had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients received care and treatment from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. The staff actively involved themselves in the community and charity work.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment because services were flexible and joined-up. The staff communicated with the community optometrists 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 service had appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information but they were not all in formats that were tailored to individual needs in line with their accessible information standard policy.

Patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date but it was not always provided in a way they could understand, and which met their communication needs. There were leaflets, including complaints leaflets, in several different languages and display signs in fonts that were larger for those with poor eyesight. However, the information was not available for blind people and the service had not ensured information was available to all visually impaired people.

They provided face-to-face interpreters or telephone interpreters where patients required, including British Sign Language. There were ‘spell it out’ sign language posters to assist staff with British sign language. There was one member of staff who was on the waiting list to learn sign language.

The website provided a walkthrough video of what to expect on the day of surgery and a tour of the purpose-built facility. There were large infographic boards throughout the hospital that displayed what would happen during the patient journey, including expected waiting times.

Patients were provided with clear information when there were delays. If there was a delay of more than 15 minutes, a sign was put up in the waiting areas and each patient was informed on arrival.

There was a “questions and answers” board in the patient waiting corridor. It displayed common questions and their answers such as “Can I fly on an aeroplane after my surgery? with the answer “you must not fly for 4 weeks after your surgery, as flying can cause an increase in eye pressure.”

The service displayed the next available surgery date in the waiting areas, so patients knew if they were booked on for surgery how long they needed to wait. At the time of the assessment, the next available date was the 1 July 2025 which was 2 weeks after the assessment date.

There were lots of notice boards in the waiting areas to provide patients with information. These included:

• cataract surgery and expectation.
• ‘Caring for you and your eyes’ board.
• An infection prevention and control board.
• A pre-operative assessment board including what happens at each stage.
• A patient transport board.
• A questions and answers board.
• A wellbeing board which was changed monthly. At the time of the assessment it was a ‘Things to do in Solihull’ board.
• A ‘Solihull News’ board.
• A dementia awareness board.
• An ‘All about eyes’ information board.

There was a daily display that showed who was in the clinic, who the manager of the clinic was that day and which clinics were on for patients to see.

The service had a lot of standard operating procedures to keep staff informed of the correct procedures such as escorting patients to and from theatre, latex allergy management and vitreoretinal surgery.

The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients 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. There were paper feedback forms in the reception area and patients were asked to fill these in after every appointment. They were also sent a feedback form online to complete. Sight support officers assisted patients who needed help with filling in forms. Results showed 98.8% of patients rated their overall experience with SpaMedica Solihull as either very good or good. Most comments received were positive including "The staff were friendly and very attentive, and the procedure was carried out in a professional manner." and "superb service from everybody". However, there were some negative comments about a patient being left feeling cold, and nurses not assisting a patient with mobility. All feedback was gathered and analysed every Friday and fed back to the teams either at a team meeting or at their huddles.

Patients were also able to provide feedback through NHS choices. However, we were told at the assessment this was closing, and they would be using a different online review site for future reviews.

Patients, their family, friends and other carers felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. 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. Information on how to make a complaint was also available at the service and on SpaMedica website. The complaint procedure outlined the stages of the complaint process.

Complaints were explored thoroughly, and patients received a response in good time. Complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. The service had received 3 formal complaints and 2 complaints from patient feedback in 2025. Two of these involved surgeon bedside manner and attitude towards the patient. There was a surgeon liaison manager who supported any complaints involving medical staff. Feedback was shared with the surgeons involved regarding their bedside manner. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff at team meetings. Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement. All staff had completed handling complaints e-learning training.

The service was exceptional at ensuring 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. Each patient was called to offer them a choice of appointment date. They were sent confirmation letters and rang or text patients with a reminder 2 days prior to their appointment. It was easy to rearrange appointments if patients needed to.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely. It was delivered in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements. Managers monitored waiting times and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets. Patients were treated within an average of 6 weeks between January and May 2025, which succeeded the 18-week referral to treatment time. In June it reduced to 5 weeks. When a patient arrived for pre-assessment, the next availability of their surgical procedure was within 2 weeks. They had a set company target of 7 weeks.

The service ensured they made reasonable adjustments for disabled patients, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises. The site was purpose built and was accessible for disabled patients. The staff ensured there were limited communication barriers by providing interpreters and leaflets in different languages. They had employed a partially sighted person to consult them on their environment and make suggestions for improvements. They had changed the colour of some of their notice boards to ensure they were not too contrasting, in line with what was recommended. They were working on implementing other improvements, including the creation of a QR code which could be scanned at each information board and the information would be spoken out loud for patients who were unable to read the boards.

Patients could access the services when they needed to, without physical or digital barriers, including out of normal hours and in an emergency. The service was open 8am until 5.30pm Monday to Saturday. Managers told us currently there was not the demand for evening appointments but if there was, they would provide this. There was an emergency support line 24 hours a day 7 days a week. When the service opened for emergency treatment, a surgeon, registered nurse and healthcare technician would be on site. Details of any emergency treatment would be noted on the patient record and an incident form was completed if required.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of patients in accessing care, treatment and support. This included from wider society, within organisational processes and culture or from individuals. There was a ‘no exclusions working group' which looked at ways to encourage patients from ethnic minority groups to attend opticians. It was found some minority ethnic groups often did not attend. The service were looking at ways in which they could in-reach into these specific communities and work with community leaders to promote opticians and the importance of regular sight checks.

There were many community optometrists registered on the SpaMedica Accredited Partner Programme. There were regular accreditation scheme sessions which included training the optometrists what to look for in post-operative patients. This was of benefit to the patients as they could be seen in the community close to where they lived. This also meant the hospital were able to see more patients as some patients attended their community optometrists for post-operative checks.

The service offered a free door-to-door transport service for those who needed it. There was a specific criteria which was that the person needed to be able to get onto the vehicle independently. The service included space for a carer or relative to accompany them if needed. All drivers had basic life support training and disclosure and barring services checks. There was also a local taxi service available, and staff arranged a taxi for patients if required free of charge. The service also employed a porter who would meet and greet every patient and if required, assist them from the car park into the reception area. Patients told us they felt the porter was very helpful and made them feel welcome.

The service had recently purchased a diagnostic treatment centre (DTC). It was 3 portable units including a fully functioning theatre. It enabled patients to be treated anywhere. Managers looked at waiting lists and referral numbers and worked closely with the integrated care boards to see where waiting lists were increasing. They then used the DTC to do extra outpatient clinics or used it as an extra theatre if required to reduce waiting lists. At the time of the assessment, the DTC was in a supermarket carpark in Hereford to reduce waiting lists within this area.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support. For example, those with mental ill health, learning disabilities and dementia. There was a dementia champion, and 95.7% of staff had completed dementia awareness training. There were quiet areas away from the waiting rooms if required. The staff had knitted ‘twiddle muffs' for patients living with dementia. The nurses took the time to crochet ‘feeling flowers' and ‘'worry worms' for patients who were nervous. The patient could take these with them whilst they were waiting for their surgery. There was a dementia notice board with further information about support for patients living with dementia.

Staff assessed patients' needs in relation to language, hearing, sight, and mobility in advance of their attendance. Staff understood and applied a policy on meeting the information and communication needs of patients with a disability or sensory loss. The hospital had information in large print and a hearing loop was available to assist patients wearing a hearing aid.

Staff celebrated religious festivals including Diwali, Eid al-Adha and Hanukkah, as well as Easter and Christmas. We saw staff celebrated events by providing specific foods, and posters to encourage understanding and inclusion of diverse groups in the community. There was a prayer room on site for patients and staff who needed to pray while they were at the hospital.

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 managers were looking to reduce health inequalities. There was an equality, diversity and inclusion lead within the company. They had set up a ‘no exclusions working group’ to look at how they were providing care for all patients. They had made adaptions to several hospitals in different regions of the company to ensure there was an accessible hospital near for each patient who required adjustments. The local hospital which had been adapted for these purposes within the region local to Solihull which had been adapted was Wolverhampton.

The no exclusions working group had also looked at the staff they employed, and they had realised they had no partially sighted staff. They intended to reach out into this community to offer recruitment opportunities.

The service were transparent with patients about their outcomes. Quality accounts including patient outcomes were published on the website for all patients to see.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and surgery. 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. There was input from optometrists, surgeons, and nurses, to ensure patients were fully informed and supported in their care in line with national guidance.