CES Medical – Tunbridge Wells

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

The service worked with patients to understand and manage risks. Care met patients' needs in a way which was safe and supportive and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them.

When people communicated their needs, staff managed this in a positive way which protected their rights and dignity.

We looked for evidence that staff treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion. We assessed the levels of privacy and dignity afforded to patients. We asked patients about their experiences. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take patients’ wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This is the first assessment since registering to provide a regulated activity. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The service treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff also treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were caring and respectful in their interactions. They introduced themselves, explained their roles and took time to speak with patients in a considerate way. We observed staff supporting patients appropriately, including offering reassurance to those who were anxious and helping patients to move safely when needed.

Patients told us they were treated well and with kindness. We spoke with 5 patients on the day of the assessment, and all patients were positive about the care they had received. Feedback from the provider survey was positive, with respondents describing a good experience of care and expressing satisfaction with the service provided.

Staff maintained confidentiality in line with policy. Consultation rooms were kept closed during appointments, and conversations could not be overheard, supporting patients’ privacy.

However, we saw one instance where a patient was self-administering eye drops in the reception area. This could affect privacy and dignity. Although this appeared to be an isolated occurrence, it showed staff needed to ensure patients were always supported to maintain their dignity.

The service used the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. Between January 2026 and April 2026, the response rate averaged 11%. January 2026, the first month of use at this site, had the lowest response rate at 4%; however, this increased month on month. Leaders told us they aimed to achieve a response rate of at least 30%.

Overall, patient satisfaction was very high. Of those who responded to the FFT, 92% rated the service as “very good”.

Patient feedback described a consistently positive experience. Patients told us staff were friendly, approachable and communicated clearly. They said staff explained their conditions, tests and treatment options in a way they could understand, and that they felt involved in decisions about their care and well prepared for procedures.

The service treated patients as individuals and ensured care and treatment met their needs and preferences. Leaders reviewed feedback and followed up where patients reported a poor experience, encouraging them to raise concerns so the service could learn and improve.

We reviewed five care records and found staff completed personalised assessments and developed care plans based on individual needs, medical history and identified risks. Records included clear documentation of discussions about treatment options, including risks and benefits.

Staff made reasonable adjustments where required, such as allowing additional time for appointments, involving family members or carers, and arranging interpreters. Follow-up care and treatment decisions were tailored to individual patient needs rather than a standardised approach.

The service promoted patients’ independence and made sure people understood their rights and could make choices about their care and treatment.

Staff gave patients clear, easy-to-understand information about their condition and treatment options, including the risks and benefits. Patients were encouraged to ask questions and were given time to decide what was right for them. Records showed that patients understood their options and knew they could change their minds at any time.

For private patients, staff discussed treatment options first and then gave a clear written quote before any decision was made. This included the cost of the procedure, follow-up appointments and any medicines. Patients also received written information, including terms and conditions and leaflets, so they knew exactly what to expect.

Staff supported patients to stay in control of their care. They gave practical advice about eye care, using medication and when to seek help. Staff respected patient preferences, involved family members where appropriate, and made adjustments when needed, such as allowing more time or arranging interpreters.

Patients were given clear information about their rights, including how to raise concerns or make a complaint.

We saw clear evidence of shared decision-making in practice. Staff involved patients in discussions and decisions about their care during consultations, and this was also reflected in care records.

The service had a chaperone policy, and patients were offered a chaperone for examinations and procedures. Information about this was displayed in reception, and trained staff were available to act as chaperones if needed.

Staff provided patients with clear, easy-to-understand information about their condition and treatment options, including risks and benefits. Patients were encouraged to ask questions and were given sufficient time to make informed decisions. Care records demonstrated that patients understood their options and were aware they could change their decision at any time.

For private patients, staff discussed treatment options before providing a clear written quotation, which included the cost of procedures, follow-up care and medicines. Patients were also given written information, including terms and conditions and clinical leaflets, to support informed decision-making.

Staff supported patients to remain in control of their care. They provided practical advice on eye care, medication use, and when to seek further support. Patients’ preferences were respected, and staff involved family members or carers where appropriate. Reasonable adjustments were made when required, such as allowing additional time or arranging interpreters.

We saw clear evidence of shared decision-making in practice. Staff involved patients in discussions during consultations, and this was consistently reflected in care records.

Patients were given information about their rights, including how to raise concerns or make a complaint. A chaperone policy was in place, and patients were offered a chaperone for examinations and procedures. Information about this was clearly displayed, and staff who had completed chaperone training were available to undertake this role.

Staff were responsive to patients’ immediate needs. Patients told us staff were friendly, attentive and responsive, and that information provided was clear and helpful. They said appointments were arranged promptly and that staff responded quickly to any queries or concerns.

The environment supported patient needs, including those with reduced mobility. Corridors were wide and uncluttered, access was step-free, and consultation rooms were easily accessible. Staff ensured mobility aids were within reach and supported patients to move safely while promoting independence.

Staff provided reassurance and emotional support, adapting their approach to individual needs. Patients were not rushed and were given time to feel comfortable. Family members were involved where appropriate, and staff provided guidance to help them support patients effectively.

Care records showed that staff recognised individual needs and made appropriate adjustments, including communication support and follow-up arrangements tailored to the patient.

The service supported staff to carry out their roles and deliver person-centred care.

Staff had access to facilities which was a small kitchen and seated area. Staff told us they were able to take breaks during their shifts and could take additional breaks where needed for personal health requirements.

Staff felt able to give feedback, raise concerns and suggest improvements. The provider completed an annual staff survey. The most recent results showed that staff were generally positive about their roles and felt proud to work for the service. The survey also identified some areas of pressure, including workload and staffing, which leaders were aware of.

Staff worked well together and had opportunities for shared learning. For example, staff had identified a need for additional training in managing challenging situations, and this had been arranged.

The service provided a range of support for staff wellbeing, including access to an employee support programme and other staff benefits. Team activities and wellbeing initiatives were available to support staff engagement.

The provider promoted equality and inclusion. Policies had been reviewed to ensure fairness, and staff had access to support such as mental health first aiders. The provider had also adopted a zero‑tolerance approach to inappropriate behaviour.