North Bristol Private Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people's care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This was the first inspection for this service. At this inspection we rated Effective as good. This meant patients’ outcomes were consistently good, and patients’ feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure patients’ care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

We reviewed records which demonstrated that all patients would attend an initial consultation to assess their needs and discuss the proposed treatment plan. They would explain the risks involved in proposed surgery, advise on costs involved and the steps to take pre-surgery.

Facilities and premises were innovative and met the needs of a range of people who used the service. There was a lift for patients to use between floors. There was a refuge area and evacuation chair available in case of a fire. The facilities were accessible by wheelchair. The clinic had access to an online translation service.

We saw records which demonstrated procedures were clearly explained to patients, with diagrams used where appropriate.

We observed staff communicating with a patient who was due to attend surgery. The patient said that staff were kind and that they were very happy with care they had received when they had previously attended. They stated they had attended an assessment some time back which had given her time to consider her options.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered patients’ care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence based good practice and standards.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance. All documents were available electronically and in paper folders. The registered manager was in the process of reviewing the provider’s policies. We reviewed a sample of the provider’s policy and found they were all in date and current. We reviewed 5 pre-operative assessments and saw they were carried out according to national guidance from the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The clinic held regular clinical, Medical Advisory Committee and governance meetings. The service employed an external consultant whose purpose was to attend the Medical Advisory Committee. Managers told us this encouraged discussion and the sharing of good practice, along with updates in relation to national guidance. We saw evidence in meeting minutes the service checked they were adhering to the latest guidance and good practice.

Staff were experienced, qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. The surgeons had the skills, competence and experience to perform the treatments and procedures they provided. They each performed specialist surgical procedures at independent or NHS hospitals, in addition to their work at the clinic.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. Since the new registered manager joined the service in March 2025, a regular programme of audit had been introduced. Audit results were shared with staff and improvement actions discussed where necessary.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support patients.

Patients were seen and treated by their consultant of choice. Treatment provided was consultant-led.

Patients with psychological and emotional needs were signposted to appropriate services when required.

Communication between staff was clear and patient focused. We observed 3 theatre procedures and saw there was good working relationships between staff and there was clear communication to ensure the surgical procedures were carried out safely.

Staff worked effectively across teams to support people. Feedback on the service stated how every member of staff from the receptionist to the consultant put patients' needs at the centre of their care.

Following discharge, the service ensured they coordinated with the patients GP so they were aware of the surgery the patient had received and were aware of any medication they had been prescribed.

If there was a need for transfer to NHS care, the service had a contract with an emergency retrieval company.

Staff shared information about patients at handover meetings. There was a resident medical officer (doctor) and a registered nurse who worked overnight.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

Patients were given advice leaflets following surgery for diet and exercise. For example, exercise was to be limited following some surgical procedures and to be re-introduced over a period of time. We also observed information given to patients following surgery to aid recovery, in particular, treatment to reduce bruising. Patients were given information regarding common side affects and had access to 24/7 advice line should they have any questions. This helped with early identification of any issues and to prevent patients deteriorating. Patients were expected to attend 2 or more follow up appointments with the nurse or the consultant following their surgery to ensure there was a good recovery process.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff used recognised tools to improve the detection and response to clinical deterioration in patients as a key element of patient safety and improving patient outcomes.

The service participated in submitting data to national organisations. The service submitted data to the Private Healthcare information Network and the Breast and Cosmetic Implant Registry. Providers submit data to the Breast and Cosmetic Implant Registry to ensure patient safety and to contribute to long-term safety data collection. The data is essential for tracing patients in case of product recalls or safety concerns.

Outcomes for patients were positive, consistent and met expectations. Questionnaires were sent to patients following surgical procedures. Responses for the questionnaires were positive. The service reviewed the results of patients’ surgery at different stages of the healing process and additional appointments were arranged if necessary. Patients were discharged from the service by the consultant.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Patients were given the information they needed to make a decision about what treatment or procedure they wanted. All reasonable treatment options, along with their implications were explained to the patient including the risk factors. Consent for surgery was obtained at the assessment visit. There was at least a a 2 week gap between assessment visit and surgery to enable the patient to reconsider their decision. This was in line with national guidance. The service also completed the same consent form on the day of surgery. We reviewed 5 patient files and saw that all patients had consented to receive surgery.