Optegra Maidstone

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 meant we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

We assessed all quality statements.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Drop-free cataract surgery eliminated the need for post-operative eye drops after the procedure. This meant that the patient did not need to remember which eye drop to take at which time of day for the 4 weeks post-surgery.

We looked at feedback on the service’s website and saw comments “the no drops steroid injection is fantastic, never had any issues whatsoever. Thank you very much Optegra” and I’ll walk out of here and in a couple of days (post-surgery) I’ll take the covers off and that’s it! I don’t have to worry about.

We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Our observations of communication between staff, patients and their relatives were positive. Interactions we observed between staff and patients were kind, respectful and compassionate. Staff consistently engaged with patients about their care and extended conversations into other areas of interests the patient may have alluded to.

We found that people were treated with kindness, dignity and compassion. Staff provided person centered care, communicated clearly, respected privacy, and made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs.

We spoke to 2 patients on the ward and 3 in the outpatient area. Patients were pleased with the care they had received and complimented the staff on the standard of the service and professionalism. We observed a patient who was very anxious about the procedure and noted how the consultant adapted his communication style to meet the patient's needs. He took the time to reassure the patient, answer their concerns, and put them at ease, which helped build trust and reduce their anxiety. Comments highlighted that staff explained procedures well, which helped reduce anxiety. Overall, patients described the service as prompt, excellent, and courteous

Staff gave examples of how they would maintain patient’s dignity in different areas of the clinic. For example, staff provided privacy by closing doors, curtains, and limiting unnecessary staff presence.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. We observed that staff took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness. Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential. Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs. The principles of treating patients with compassion and respect was part of staff induction and competencies, which were reviewed in one-to-one supervision meetings.

Between April 2024 and March 2025, 769 patients completed the Friends and Family Test, with 99–100% providing positive feedback. The main issue raised in the small number of negative comments was difficulty locating the clinic due to limited signage.

They introduced themselves, explained their roles, kept patients informed throughout their care, and built reassuring rapport. We observed consistently respectful and compassionate interactions, reflected in the positive feedback and thank you cards displayed in the waiting area.

Staff responded to patients’ anxieties about their operation and took steps to reduce the stress within the environment. They supported patients who were particularly anxious, or who had cognitive impairment, by allowing them to have someone familiar with them.

Staff interacted with people whilst delivering care, to ensure patients maintained as much independence as possible and made choices for themselves, they encouraged questions and explained what they were doing.

Staff had a good understanding of individual needs and preferences. They were sensitive and compassionate when providing or discussing care and treatment. We reviewed 5 electronic patient’s records (EPR) and found that individual preferences were recorded within each set of records, which are initially completed during the pre-operative assessment. The EPR included dedicated sections for recording patient preferences, and these were highlighted prominently on the patient’s records, ensuring that relevant information was highly visible and readily available to all members of the clinical team involved in the patient's care.

Patients with mobility difficulties accessed the service easily because the facility was on the ground floor. Wide corridors and doors allowed wheelchair users to move through without obstruction, and the reception desk design enabled clear access for those using wheelchairs. Staff placed patients with specific needs on dedicated operating lists, giving extra time to meet their individual requirements. This included allowing extra time for appointments, encouraging relatives or carers to enter clinical areas such as the ward to provide support and reassurance, providing a clinic room for privacy and arranging their appointment at a time that suited the patient.

Leaders encouraged equality and understanding, ensuring that individual needs were recognised and respected. Staff completed equality, diversity and human rights training, including understanding learning disabilities and autism, effective communication strategies, promoting independence, person-centered care, and addressing specific needs and challenges, compliance was 100%.

Patients had access to British Sign Language (BSL) the primary sign language used by the deaf community in the UK.

Although requests for these services were relatively uncommon, they remained readily available. If a patient required support in a language that was not commonly spoken within the local area, the service could print the relevant leaflet on-site from their library of translated information leaflets and arrange an appropriate interpreter to support their care

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff provided clear information about care and treatment, explaining what patients could expect at each stage of their journey.

They identified when patients needed additional communication support and arranged spoken-language interpreters for appointments booked in advance. Patients and visitors with hearing impairments had access to a hearing loop system, ensuring equitable access to information. For example, a hearing loop was available at reception, on arrival patients requiring the hearing loop were advised on how to connect to the device and this was recorded in their electronic patient record for future visits.

The service allowed relatives to act as chaperones in the pre‑theatre room to support patients, reduce anxiety and help ensure they felt comfortable and informed before the procedure. This approach helped involve the patient and their relative in understanding the procedure and managing any associated risks. The service also displayed information advising patients that a chaperone could be present during consultations if required, supporting informed decision making and involvement in their care. Fourteen staff had completed chaperone training.

The service provided patients with an information booklet before cataract surgery. This included clear advice and a decision‑making tool that explained the available options. Patients were asked questions about what mattered most to them to help them decide whether to have surgery, use aids and adaptations, or choose to do nothing. The booklet also outlined the potential benefits and risks so patients could make an informed decision, supporting their independence, choice and control.

Patients were offered a choice of dates for planned surgery and outpatient appointments, and those we spoke with confirmed they had been given options.

The service offered patient‑initiated follow‑up appointments (allowing patients to request a review when they felt they needed it, rather than attending routine appointments) to reduce unnecessary appointments and give patients greater control over when they sought review.

Non-commissioned procedures were also available and could be discussed and planned with a clinician.

The provider offered patients premium intraocular lenses privately, as these lenses were not funded through standard NHS provision. Staff explained this option so patients could decide whether they wanted to explore premium intraocular lens on a self‑funded basis or continue with the standard NHS funded lens, supporting informed choice and control over their treatment.

All private patients had an appointment with the service’s Patient Liaison who explained the treatment prices of their chosen procedure, the financial arrangements including medical insurance and benefits associated with the procedure. Thereafter, all patients were given 7 days cooling period before the procedure could go ahead. Optegra had a consent policy stipulating the cooling off period and staff were trained to ensure when consenting this was followed. Furthermore, the terms and conditions provided to all private patients included a cooling off period.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. In theatre, healthcare technicians offered floating support which included giving reassurance to anxious patients. Staff understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them. Relatives were present at time of discharge. They were empathetic and considerate of the stress of a theatre environment. Staff allowed family members to accompany patients to the pre-theatre room to provide reassurance and emotional support, particularly for those who were anxious or vulnerable.

We spoke with 3 patients in pre-assessment who told us staff were always available to offer support or advice.

Although there was no dedicated space staff said if a patient required privacy, they would provide them with an empty clinic room.

We reviewed 5 electronic patient records demonstrating that staff were alerted to people's needs and responded promptly and appropriately to these. We saw that the team regularly discussed individual needs and engaged with patients on how best to respond. Staff said they also looked beyond what was written in the patient’s records to assess the patient holistically and ensure they understood and could be responsive to their needs.

Staff supported patients living with dementia and learning disabilities. Information was gathered as part of the assessment process which enabled staff to identify and meet patients’ individual needs. Staff understood and applied the policy on meeting the information and communication needs of patients with a disability or sensory loss. The service had information leaflets available in languages spoken by the patients and local community. Managers made sure staff, and patients, loved ones and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

The dementia lead supported people living with dementia who used the service. When a patient was identified during pre-assessment or treatment planning as living with dementia, the dementia lead would work with the team caring for the patient to recommend reasonable adjustments and person centred approaches that support the patient’s individual needs throughout their care journey. These were recorded in the patient passport so accessible to all staff caring for the patient.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We spoke with 4 staff and 3 members of the leadership team who told us that they enjoyed working for the clinic and said that they worked well as a team. Leaders had a visible presence, and staff could approach them with any concerns. Staff said they felt supported by the local management.

Staff had access to the facilities they needed to work safely, including a clean well-maintained staff room, which provided a suitable place to take their breaks.

Staff were encouraged to attend courses for their development and one of the senior nurses was in the process of completing a master’s module in management.

Managers made sure staff attended team meetings or had access to the information shared if they could not attend. We saw evidence of meeting notes, and staff reported good attendance at meetings.

The service held daily informal team meetings to share operational updates, highlight any key issues or areas of awareness, and provide staff with an opportunity to discuss any concerns. These meetings also supported staff wellbeing by enabling managers to check that workloads were distributed fairly, identify any support needs, and ensure team members felt valued and supported in their roles.

The provider also fostered a positive and inclusive culture, with staff reporting that they felt valued, supported and able to raise concerns. "BeYOU" promoted equality, diversity, inclusion and wellbeing, ensuring staff felt valued, respected and supported. The forum raised awareness of different experiences, encouraged staff engagement, and provided initiatives such as financial wellbeing webinars to help employees through cost of living challenges.

Staff consistently spoke with pride about their work and described the team as supportive and collaborative. New starters told us their induction was welcoming and well‑organised, helping them settle in quickly and feel confident in their roles.

The culture was centred on the needs and experience of people who use services. The service promoted its values through onboarding processes and corporate induction that included meeting the chief executive.

Non clinical staff had knowledge of the clinical pathways for inclusion. Staff felt positive and proud to work in the organisation. For example, reception staff were familiar with the clinical pathways and eligibility criteria for treatment. However, the initial assessment was undertaken either by Optegra’s artificial intelligence (AI) agent, Iris, or by a member of the Central Team.

If, at any stage, a non-clinical member of staff identified that a patient who was previously considered eligible for treatment may no longer be suitable under the relevant pathway, the case would be escalated to an appropriately registered clinician, such as a nurse, optometrist, or surgeon. The registered clinician would review the patient’s circumstances and make the final decision regarding whether the patient continued to meet the inclusion criteria for treatment. This was recorded in the patient's EPR.

Staff we spoke with said they would recommend it as a good place to work. We looked at the action plan to improve staff experience at work. The 3 priority areas were job satisfaction, information sharing and wellbeing.

The provider was committed to supporting staff wellbeing and creating an inclusive, supportive working environment. Leaders had implemented a range of wellbeing initiatives, reward structures, development programmes and recognition schemes to ensure staff felt valued, supported and empowered in their roles. For example, Optegra offered a wide range of employee benefits including a confidential, 24/7 Employee Assistance Programme (EAP), private healthcare insurance and blue light card benefits. They recognised the toll stress could have on their staff therefore, had a designated mental health first aider (MHFA) who was available to support staff, to chat through any worries and sign-post to professional support if needed.

The provider was with another company which offered free counselling and support for mental health in the workplace. With regards to rewards, they offered staff lunch on training days (team meeting) or provided cakes or donuts on special events such as staff birthdays. Their employee of the month nominated by their colleagues the winner received a £100 voucher to spend at a range of shops. The service had a human resources platform where staff or managers could send praise thanking or recognising the work of their colleagues.

Local leaders were visible within the service for both patients and staff. The service manager carried out daily rounds and attended safety huddles, and staff told us they consistently felt supported by their manager. Protected characteristics were identified at the earliest opportunity, most often during the recruitment process. Human resources and the employee's line manager would work closely with the individual to identify and implement reasonable adjustments, ensuring that their needs were considered and accommodated wherever practicable.