Prema

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 is the first assessment for this recently registered service. This key question has been rated good.

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.

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 make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

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.

Care planning was person centred with the needs and preferences of the patient as the focus. When a patients’ condition changed and delayed planned surgical treatment, staff communicated with and worked with patients to resolve this.

For example, on the day of the inspection a patient presented for surgery. However, during the pre-surgery consent process they explained they were on antibiotics due to an insect bite. The surgeon discussed this with the patient and agreed surgery was not a viable option until the course of antibiotics had been completed.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

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.

Patients accessed the service through a range of options, including self-referral. The service also accepted referrals from other private providers who had assessed patients but could not provide care at the level or complexity required.

When patients needed additional support and care, staff ensured patients were referred to the appropriate specialist service

For patients who followed a standard pathway and required no further care or treatment, their clinical information was handed over to their General Practitioner or community ophthalmologist if they consented to this. This supported continuity of care across services.

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

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 provided information in a range of formats such as varying print size and languages. All patients were provided with information on how to give feedback or make a complaint. Patients received information about how and when to ask for help following their procedure.

Leaders ensured staff and patients had easy access to an independent interpreter when needed. Communications about fees were open and transparent, in line with marketing and advertising standards.

Information governance systems developed and used by the service followed relevant information governance standards relating to confidentiality of patient information. Staff completed information governance training as part of their mandatory training.

We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

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.

Staff made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment. They talked with patients in a way they could understand and adapted communication to the needs and understanding of each patient.

Patients we spoke with had no concerns about their care and treatment. They knew who to speak to if they had concerns and felt confident that this would be taken seriously. There were posters in the waiting room areas describing how to make a complaint.

The service received 1 complaint during the 12 months to July 2025. Complaints were responded to in line with the services’ own policy. Most complaints were due to patients being dissatisfied with the visual outcome, but these were identified as known potential outcomes of surgery. The provider had identified some learning from the complaints, which included additional training for staff in managing difficult conversations. This training was being planned for staff to attend and benefit from.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

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.

Patients accessed the service using a variety of routes, including through self-pay or insured options. Should the service be unable to treat a patient, due to clinical need or complexity, they would refer to another suitable provider to ensure the patient received the correct care.

Staff of all grades worked together to ensure every patient had a positive experience during their treatment journey. Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example the building was adapted to allow for people with mobility issues.

We seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders 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 service had an equality impact assessment tool to assess whether policies promoted equality for all patients and staff. The tool was used to during the development and review of provider policies.

However, it was not clear if the service collected data on protected characteristics. Therefore, the service was unable to assess whether these areas impacted on patient experiences or outcomes.

There were no complaints shared with us that identified protected characteristics as a potential factor.

We support people to plan for life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

The service used clinical suitability guidelines to identify patients suitable for surgery. Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment on a case-by-case basis. Staff ensured all relevant people were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. When any treatment was changed or withdrawn, staff were supported by existing process to manage and communicate this openly.