Optegra Maidstone

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 meant 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 looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

Staff used visual aids, translation applications, and interpreters for patients who did not speak English as their first language. They provided a loop system for patients with hearing impairments, promoting inclusive and accessible communication across the service.

The provider worked with national sight-loss organisations to enhance support for people with visual impairment. Patients received information in accessible formats tailored to their needs, including interpreter services, large-print materials and multilingual signage. Information about cataract surgery was clear and easy to access, although Braille information was not yet available.

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.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Staff consistently considered patients' communication needs, abilities, preferences, and levels of understanding to provide personalised, person-centred care.

The service tailored care around individual needs and preferences by adapting communication methods to meet individual patient needs.

Care was observed to be patient centred. Reception staff described how they adapted their approach to accommodate protected characteristics, including making reasonable adjustments for patients with disabilities.

The service had an Equality, Inclusion and Human Rights Policy. This outlined that patients, their relatives or identified carer(s) would be treated with respect and due consideration. Patients would be afforded healthcare in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital/civil partnership status, religion and belief, trans gender and social status. This was in line with Optegra Clinical Policies and Dignity at Work Procedure and Guidance.

Managers ensured that staff, patients, families and carers had access to visual aids, translation applications, interpreters, and sign language services to ensure patients could understand information and participate fully in decisions about their care.

The service supported patients with sensory impairments by providing accessible facilities and equipment, including a hearing loop system for patients with hearing difficulties and clear signage for those with sight loss.

Staff ensured understanding of care and treatment by adjusting explanations to suit the patient's level of understanding, particularly for patients with communication difficulties or additional support needs.

The service respected patients' preferred method of communication and consent. Staff were observed obtaining non-verbal consent from patients who communicated through actions and gestures, demonstrating a personalised approach to gaining consent before care was delivered.

The service provided individualised discharge information. Nurses tailored discharge discussions to each patient's level of understanding, ensuring patients received clear information about their recovery, medication, what symptoms to look out for, when to seek help, and how to access the provider's 24-hour emergency contact service.

The service actively promoted person-centred care and shared decision-making, enabling patients to make informed choices about both their treatment and how they wished their condition to be managed.

The service ensured self‑pay patients were fully informed of all expected and potential costs, in line with Royal College of Ophthalmologist guidance. Staff provided written details of fees, payment terms and any additional charges before treatment began. The service also supplied clear information on its website and in advance letters, explaining what was included and not included in the self‑pay package.

The service provided patients with an information booklet before cataract surgery ensuring patients understood the proposed procedure, associated costs, potential benefits, risks, and alternative options before making a decision. This included a decision-making tool designed to help patients consider what mattered most to them and how treatment might affect their quality of life.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant. For example, where a patient did not meet Optegra’s treatment criteria or required more specialist care, the clinical team would liaise with the appropriate service on the patient's behalf. This may include contacting or writing to the patient's GP, hospital consultant, or another specialist service to highlight the patient's needs and support timely access to appropriate care and treatment. The service also ensured that patients were fully involved in discussions regarding their care, treatment options, and onward referrals, enabling them to make informed decisions and have their views considered throughout the process. The service worked effectively with general practitioners, optometrists, and secondary care providers to ensure clear referral and shared‑care pathways, which supported coordinated and timely care.

Staff were able to tell us how they coordinated care transfers to external providers, including the information shared and the pathways followed, supporting continuity of care.

The provider planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant. For example, leaders had met with other organisations to discuss specific needs in their area.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of their patient population and used this to support patient choice in how and when care was delivered. Although the patient population was not highly diverse, the service promoted equality, diversity and inclusion through regular staff training, an active Equality and Inclusion Group, and awareness-raising activities that helped staff meet the needs of people from different backgrounds.

This helped people access appointments sooner, supported attendance, and contributed to managing waiting times more effectively.

They proactively recognised and planned for specific needs, arranging interpreters, providing hearing support, and accommodating patients with reduced vision through large-print materials and clear signage. These measures promoted equitable access, supported patient choice, and enhanced continuity of care.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and managed referrals and appointments in a way that supported timely access to care. Referrals were checked and triaged through the referral management centre, ensuring people were directed promptly to the most appropriate service. Consultants reviewed referrals quickly, and any unsuitable referrals were returned with clear explanations to support shared understanding and prevent delays.

The provider promoted patient choice, offering patients flexibility over where and when they received their care. This enabled people to select appointment locations and times that best suited their circumstances, helping reduce barriers to attendance.

Once accepted, patients followed a well‑structured clinical pathway, with consultant‑led assessment, pre‑operative review, surgery, and post‑operative support. Access to a 24/7 on‑call doctor meant patients could receive timely advice or reassurance if they had concerns after their procedure.

The service had clear processes for managing missed appointments (defined as appointments patients did not attend without letting the service know beforehand). This helped reduce avoidable delays, ensured appointments were used effectively, and supported equitable access for all patients.

Patients had access to a range of information, including leaflets covering surgical procedures, diagnostic investigations, and advice on maintaining and improving their health. Information was also available on the service’s website. The service could provide patient information in alternative languages as required, including languages commonly spoken in the local area such as Nepali, Polish, Punjabi, and Hindi. Patients requiring interpretation or translation services were identified during pre-assessment and provided with information in their preferred language. Interpreters were arranged for face-to-face appointments when needed.

Information was also available on the service’s website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients were provided with a QR code to submit feedback via Trustpilot. The service’s manager confirmed that NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) paper forms are also offered, although the receptionist noted a preference for the QR method.

There was visible information provided to patients on how to give feedback or make a formal complaint, and information was also on their website.

Positive feedback from people who use the service and others has been reflected elsewhere in the report where relevant

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.

Managers investigated complaints and identified themes. Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and patients received feedback from managers after the investigation into their complaint. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. Staff could give examples of how they used patient feedback to improve daily practice.

The provider encouraged staff to gather patient testimonials to help understand individual experiences and identify ways to improve the service. Staff used these testimonials to highlight what worked well for patients and to recognise where adjustments could make care more responsive to their needs. For example, feedback from the Friends and Family test related to patients' experiences when contacting Optegra’s central call centre. They regularly reviewed this feedback to identify opportunities for improvement and worked with the central team to enhance the patient experience and ensure enquiries were managed as efficiently and effectively as possible.

We scored the service as 3. 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 made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards.

The service made reasonable adjustments for patients, in line with the Equality Act 2010 and NHS England’s guidance on reasonable adjustments.

Staff used the electronic patient record (EPR) system to flag individual access or support needs at the point of referral, enabling staff to plan appropriately for each patient throughout their pathway. This included requirements such as interpreter support, transport, wheelchair access, mobility assistance, communication needs, learning disabilities and mental capacity considerations.

Where necessary, Optegra arranged patient transport in line with local procedures. Optegra had a referral process to ensure patients received emergency treatment when needed. As vitreoretinal (VR) conditions required specialist care, Optegra provided these services through four dedicated UK hub hospitals. It referred patients from Optegra Maidstone to the most appropriate hub, usually within 80 miles or two hours' travel, and arranged transport or, in exceptional circumstances, overnight accommodation when required.

Managers worked to keep cancellations to a minimum, and when appointments or operations were cancelled at the last minute, they ensured these were rearranged as quickly as possible and within national targets and guidance.

During the period of April 2025 to March 2026, the service had provided 3008 outpatient appointments.

We scored the service as 3. 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 within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider undertook equality impact assessments of policies and procedures to ensure they did not disadvantage vulnerable people or those with protected characteristics.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights, achieving a 100% compliance rate in November 2025, reflecting the organisation’s commitment to foster an inclusive and respectful workplace culture.

The provider updated booking communications to include site‑specific accessibility information and arranged alternative sites or transport where access barriers were identified.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Urgent cases were prioritised. The service’s manager was able to give specific examples of how urgent patient needs had been addressed in a timely manner.

Staff supported people to plan for their surgery, ensuring they had sufficient time to make informed decisions about their recovery. Staff began planning at the pre‑operative stage to promote smooth transitions, with members of the multidisciplinary team, including clinical optometrists and ophthalmic technicians, involved throughout care and treatment.

Staff ensured patients and those close to them understood their treatment, explaining procedures, seeking permission, and providing a detailed discharge booklet reinforced by verbal guidance.

For patients with reduced vision, staff supplied large‑print materials and additional verbal explanations. The provider also offered downloadable information booklets, FAQs and a 24/7 doctor‑on‑call number on its website, ensuring patients and carers could access essential information before and after surgery.