Optical Express - Southampton (The Avenue) 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 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

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.

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.

When patients needed additional support and care, staff ensured patients were referred to the appropriate specialist service. If patients required specialist care like a vitreoretinal referral, this was made available through a central team. The service audited and monitored onward specialist referrals by ensuring these were incident reported.

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

We scored the service as 3. 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 this was needed. This was made available for an additional fee. Communications about fees were open and transparent, in line with marketing and advertising standards.

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. However, it was not always clear whether patients were satisfied by the complaints resolution process.

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 in English. The service had a 5 working day timeframe to translate documents into other languages. This was also available on their website.

The service received 11 complaints between January and May 2025. All complaints were responded to within 30 days, 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.

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 services’ risk register in 2023 identified risk of inequitable access due to patient mobility difficulties. Staff and leaders managed this well by undertaking individual risk assessments and referred patients to an alternative accessible location when this was needed. The service had recently removed this risk from the risk register as they had installed a new lift in January 2025 to improve accessibility for people with mobility needs.

Consultations with consultant ophthalmologists were held through a video call or telephone call depending on the preference and needs of the patient. The service ensured staff received training and competency assessments to deliver good quality virtual consultations. Staff told us about a reasonable adjustment they had facilitated, where a patient was supported to have their relative present during their surgery. This reduced the anxiety related to the procedure and enabled the patient to have the treatment they desired.

However, there was no mention of interpreter fees in the services’ terms and conditions on their website. Also, there were conflicting pricing details in the interpretation service guidance the service provided to us. This meant patients needing the interpreter service could be charged different fees for the same service or may be disadvantaged from seeking care and treatment in doing so due to the cost difference. Despite this, there was no evidence this had occurred.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Staff and leaders did not always consider people most likely to experience inequality when developing policies.

The service had an equality impact assessment tool to assess whether policies promoted equality for all patients and staff. However, in the 18 policies we reviewed, there was no evidence of this tool being used. It was unclear whether feedback had been sought from diverse groups to inform policy development. Also, the service did not collect data on protected characteristics. However, there were no mandatory requirements for the service to do so. While demographic breakdowns were not routinely analysed, there were systems for monitoring outcomes and patient experience. There were no complaints shared with us that identified protected characteristics as a potential factor.

Leaders were aware of some risks of specific inequalities in accessing their service. They had identified patients living in rural areas may have travel limitations. Leaders increased availability of satellite service consultations to support patients.

Leaders undertook regional reviews of patients who had been declined treatment or considered unsuitable candidates at consultation. This system acted as a safety net to identify whether suitable patients had been denied access to treatment and examined the reasons for this.

Senior leaders appointed autism and dementia champions across their services nationally. This was created to support staff who were responsible for providing person centred adjustments for patients who needed this. The service did not share with us whether any patients at this location had benefitted from this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported when they were not suitable for care and treatment, so they could 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.