Optegra Eye Hospital Uttoxeter

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 and communities were 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.

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 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.

The service had a standard operating procedure to ensure it met the national accessibility requirements. Any requirements for a patient were documented on both the patient and clinical administration system.

Patients’ care plans fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics. Each patient was individually assessed at the pre assessment clinic. Any patient identified with reduced mobility or communication concerns had their needs assessed, recorded on the patient record and a plan made to address any issues identified as necessary.

Patients received the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. There was an equality policy that included the management of patients with a disability. This included an individualised risk assessment approach to assess and plan care in the best interests of the patient. Staff completed a module for equality, diversity and human rights as part of their mandatory training, including
supporting people with a learning disability; 85% of staff had completed this training against
provider standard of 95%.

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

Patients received care and treatment from a service that understood their diverse health and care needs. Staff were aware of the potential impact that people’s conditions posed to their mental health and wellbeing.

Care and support were inclusive and responsive to the diverse needs of the people who used the service. The service took a proactive approach in understanding the needs and preferences of different groups of patients and delivered care in a way that met those needs. Services were offered to people to help reduce the risk of fear, anxiety and social isolation, such as having opportunities to speak with consultant, opportunities to ask questions and if requested could have a loved one or carer to stay with them.

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.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. CQC received statutory notifications as required.

The hospital provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Patients could get information and advice that was provided in a way that they understood and met their communication needs. Staff had access to communication aids to help patients become partners in their care and treatment.

The hospital used an external interpreting service. One staff member was able to share an example of how they accessed the service for patients who were unable to speak English. Managers ensured patients could get help from interpreters when needed. Hearing loops were available for patients with a hearing impairment. Sign language interpreters could be booked if needed for support.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, and patients’ rights, such as how to complain.

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. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Leaders collected feedback from patients and their families on their experience of care. There had been 2 complaints since the clinic opened in December 2022. The theme of both complaints was around poor communication. We saw that both complaints, and the responses were transparent and honest.

Patients, their family, friends and others knew how to give feedback about the experience of care and support. We noted there were user feedback forms on display in public areas and on their website.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately and staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. Staff understood the policy on complaints. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. All complaints were investigated in line with the company complaints policy and discussed within hospital and department team meetings.

The clinical governance committee was responsible for reviewing themes and trends from any complaints. If patients were still not satisfied, they were given information on how to escalate their complaint to external organisations such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (for NHS patients) and the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) for private funded patients.

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.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. The hospital had 1 theatre and a 6 sitting cubicle bay area. Each cubicle was slightly segregated to promote privacy and dignity. The hospital did not provide inpatient accommodation.

Patients accessed the services through several routes, such as referral to the central booking team through their GP, optician or NHS trust, as well as through self-referral. When a patient made an initial enquiry about the services offered at the hospital, an initial consultation appointment was made, and they were given verbal and written information about the types of treatments offered. Patients were then reviewed by an optometrist or ophthalmologist before treatment.

The service reviewed the patient’s suitability for surgery and the previously completed preoperative assessment. As part of this consultation, a review of the patient’s medical history was carried out to determine whether they were suitable to undergo treatment at the hospital. The ophthalmologist saw each patient on the day of surgery to check if there had been any changes to their health, personal circumstances and to confirm patient consent for treatment.

Patients received timely care, treatment and support in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including equality and human rights. This included accessing care and treatment, making reasonable adjustments for people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises. However, records showed the average monthly referral to treatment wait times for NHS patients was now over 14 weeks, since the NHS cap was introduced in October 2025 for how many NHS patients were able to be treated at the hospital. Staff and managers told us that since October 2025, access to their services for NHS patients was less efficient with one theatre session a month. The hospital manager told us they did not have a performance target for referral to treatment waiting time for privately funded patients because appointment dates were based on a patient’s own preferences. The registered manager confirmed most privately funded patients underwent surgery within approximately 4 weeks of their initial consultation.

The service collated monthly performance information on referral to initial consultation and referral to treatment for NHS cataract and age-related macular degeneration patients.

Patients were given staggered appointment times during the day, so they did not experience long waits on the day of surgery. We saw there was sufficient time for theatre staff to carry out their duties such as completing their checks, records and preparing for the next patient in between patients.

Staff planned patient discharges individually. This included those who were in vulnerable circumstances or who had complex needs. All patients had a discharge consultation with a registered nurse after their procedure to ensure they were able to administer any eye drops. Patients were given guidance and information both verbally and in writing as part of the discharge consultation. Patients were given a post-operative follow up appointment with the consultant at routine intervals as required depending on the type of procedure they had.

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.

The hospital data reported instances where procedures had been cancelled. There were around 577 patients that had their surgery cancelled since 2024 with themes being mostly around patients’ own availability. The service monitored patients who failed to attend. Patients who did not attend appointments were contacted by telephone and logged on a follow up list so that they were not lost within the system.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

All the staff we spoke with were highly motivated and positive about their work. They told us there was a friendly and open culture and that they received good support from their colleagues and managers. Staff are trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes around their eye sights and make informed decisions about their future.

Staff ensured that all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.

Patients and families were encouraged to engage in community-based services and support programmes, creating a wider safety net that extended beyond the hospital environment, and helped reduce isolation and enhanced wellbeing. We saw the hospital had a community support notice board in patients waiting area that provided information of what services were available within the local community to enhance wellbeing and increase their support network.