North Bristol Private Hospital

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

We looked for evidence that people were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people 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.

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.

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 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.

Patients who used the service were involved in making a shared decision about their care and
treatment, so it is centred around them and their needs. Patients understood their care and
treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided.

The services were flexible, provided informed choice and ensured continuity of care. Managers and staff planned and delivered care in a way that reflected people’s needs and offered a range of choices for appointment times and consultation methods to suit them. We were given an example of a patient who the service had flexed appointment times around due to their work commitments and travel times.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The clinic was open from Monday to Friday with the surgical procedures mainly taking place on Monday and Tuesday and consultations occurring on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. There was an admissions criterion policy which was set out so all patients, irrespective of age, gender, race, religion, belief or sexual orientation, could access the service. The provider offered ways of paying for the surgical procedure which included a finance deal with no interest added.

Patients saw the consultant for the pre-operative assessment appointment that carried out their surgical procedure. During the patient’s stay there was a named nurse responsible for individual patient care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service was available for patients who were able to pay for the services provided by the organisation. The provider had a clear method for communicating prices to clients. Prices were easily accessible on the website and were also included in the pre-assessment consultation email once this has taken place.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. We saw information could be provided in different languages and there were processes to use should a person using services require translation services. Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

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 and their families could give feedback on the service, and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. The service did not receive any complaints in the last three months prior to our inspection. The hospital director stated that responding to and resolving a complaint would always be prioritised and that patient feedback from questionnaires was scrutinised to see if ideas for service improvement could be identified. The provider had a clear complaints policy that was also available on its website.

Staff were encouraged to feedback on the service. The managers had an open door policy and there were also staff feedback boxes which staff could post into anonymously.

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 was accessible for people identified as medically suitable for the service and who had the funds to pay for a procedure. The service was wheelchair accessible, with a lift between the ground and first floor. There was a ramp which provided access to the building and a receptionist to help with accessing the building during working hours. Patients had emergency call bells to use if help was required and there was ample parking for people using the services. There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency. Discharge was never delayed for other than clinical reasons.

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 promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

These patients pay privately for one off treatments at the organisation, therefore this quality statement is not relevant for this patient group.