North Bristol Private Hospital

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

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

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

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as a 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 with kindness and respect.

All staff, including managers, had a clear focus on patient care and aimed to provide the highest standard of care possible to all patients at the clinic. This was reflected in the comments we received and feedback we reviewed from patients. Feedback from patients was continually positive. One patient stated “On the day of my surgery I was shown to my room and it felt more like a 5* hotel than it did a hospital, it was stunning. I was feeling very anxious however, the team were kind and caring that soon disappeared.” We spoke with one patient during the inspection who was very satisfied with the service. This was the second time they had used the service.

We observed 2 surgical procedures during our inspection and saw all staff worked hard to ensure the patient’s experience was comfortable and positive. During the procedure staff ensured patients dignity was protected by ensuring they were appropriately covered at all times. Staff provided reassurance, information and support throughout their episode of care. The service was able to provide patients with a chaperone if required.

Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential. All documentation was stored securely. Staff followed policy and obtained consent for any photographs that were taken pre and post-surgery. There was a comfortable consulting room which was set up to help with the photographic process.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

We observed all staff treating people in a respectful manner. We observed staff engaging with patients and checking patient’s wellbeing.

The manager had recently signed up to a translation service to ensure there was easy access to interpreters if required.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups. One patient feedback “They also accommodated my gluten intolerance and the food was absolutely delicious”.

We scored the service as a 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 made sure patients understood their care and treatment and supported patients to make informed decisions about their care. Feedback on the after care provided by the service was overwhelmingly positive. Patients had access 24/7 to support and advice.

Patients who used services had access to internet, television and entertainment streaming services during their stay.

Patients and their families could give feedback on their treatment and staff supported them to do this. Questionnaires were automatically sent to patients following treatment in order to gain feedback. Patients gave positive feedback about the service. This feedback was reviewed to look at ways to improve the service.

We scored the service as a 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 demonstrated empathy when having difficult conversations. We discussed examples of surgeons speaking openly with patients about procedures they felt weren’t right for them, and they told us this had sometimes not been well received, but believed honesty was necessary when a treatment was not necessary or appropriate.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific issues quickly, such as venous thromboembolism and pain relief. One patient stated staff, “were very attentive, coming to my room very quickly any time I rang the bell, helping me move around and administering pain medication whenever I needed it, literally nothing was too much to ask”.

Managers told us patient initial consultation allowed plenty of time for them to ask any questions and assurances of the consultant.

We scored the service as a 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.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. The provider had recently carried out a staff survey which showed staff felt positive about working at the service. One staff member stated, “Am always happy to be here because I feel supported to deliver a safe practice”.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an independent occupational health service.

The service promoted the wellbeing of staff. It provided clean and comfortable staff rest rooms in which there was free tea, coffee and refreshments available. Theatre teams were provided with a courtesy lunch of their choosing from a local deli and line managers were trained to conduct wellbeing check-ins as part of routine supervision and appraisal processes. Management tried to support staff as much as possible. One example given showed the provider went beyond their contractual arrangements to support a staff member.

The service currently carried out surgical procedures on a Monday or Tuesday. We saw, sometimes there were 3 long and complicated procedures listed for a day, resulting in a long day of approximately 10 to 11 hours for staff members. Staff were supported to take regular breaks as and when possible, during the surgical procedures and between patients.