SpaMedica Carlisle

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patient’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring patient were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment were based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Patient outcomes met expectations, and harm free care was the standard. Patients’ pain was quickly identified and well managed. Staff assessed patients nutritional and hydration needs. Patients had sufficient to eat and drink or alternatives as needed. Staff ensured patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question was rated good. This meant patient’s outcomes were consistently good, and patient’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure patient’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed and reviewed patients’ health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Support was provided, where appropriate, to maximise their involvement. Patient pre-assessments were undertaken prior to arrival for a procedure, and individual needs were discussed, with consideration for any protected characteristics. When patients had used the service previously, records associated with each attendance were added to their digital record and held securely.

Patients we spoke with confirmed staff asked about the reason for referral, discussed their health history, current health concerns, any communication and mobility needs, and whether they wished to bring a companion.

Staff discussed patient’s needs for nutrition and hydration at pre-assessment. For example, patients were advised to bring a packed lunch if appropriate and hot beverages and drinking water were available in each reception area. Biscuits were available for patients as needed.

Staff shared key information to keep patients safe when handing over their care to others, such as NHS providers. Staff attended twice-daily safety huddles, so they understood the needs of patients.

Staff assessed patients’ pain and used recognised tools to do so. They gave pain relief in line with individual needs and assessed how effective this was. Pain was addressed before patients left the service and they told us they felt their pain was well managed. This was reflected in patient feedback responses regarding pain management. For the period July 2025-26, the service scored 98.56% for pain management satisfaction.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered patient’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We reviewed 7 care records which included care plans and risk assessments completed with patients. Each record clearly identified the patient, and every entry was attributable, dated and time stamped. The electronic system maintained a clear chronological audit trail. All had comprehensive documentation of medical history, medicines, consent, operative records, falls risk assessment, venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) risk assessments (used to assess, for example, patients’ risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)) and clinical decision making.

Staff followed up-to-date policies and clinical protocols to plan and deliver high-quality care, according to best practice and national guidance. All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, and clear references to current national guidelines, such as Royal Colleges guidelines and National Institute for Health and Care and Excellence (NICE) guidelines. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and management communications.

Staff we spoke with knew how to access online guidance relating to their speciality. They told us they maintained continuing professional development through online learning and demonstrated they knew about any relevant, current national guidance to inform their practice.

Consultants, nurses, healthcare support workers and non-clinical staff worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

Staff reported healthy working relations across staff groups including between medical and nursing teams. We observed and heard examples of effective team working which was based on mutual respect and trust.

Plans for discharge considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, ongoing care arrangements and expected outcomes to ensure they were safe and appropriate for the person’s needs.

Information was shared between teams and services, such as opticians, GPs and NHS providers to ensure continuity of care.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control.

Patients undergoing operations or those living with degenerative eye conditions, had access to information about their condition, their treatment and how best to prepare for surgery, if this was required. Staff spoke with them about how best to optimise their outcomes after surgery and how to modify their lifestyle choices to ensure better health.

Patient information leaflets available on the provider’s website signposted people to healthier lifestyle advice, to help them manage their own eye condition. For example, regular exercise, a healthy diet, smoking cessation and stress management.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service monitored patient’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patients themselves.

The service submitted data to the National Ophthalmology Database audit (NOD), which is a UK-wide clinical audit program run by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. It measures key safety and quality metrics like complication rates and vision recovery. This allows hospitals and surgeons who participate, to be benchmarked directly against national averages, to improve the quality, safety, and standards of eye care services across the NHS and independent providers.

The most recent national data available (2024) showed outcomes for the service were within expected limits, with extremely low complication rates and high success rates for improvements to vision. Local audits and benchmarking against other SpaMedica locations compared favourably.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service told patients about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service had a consent policy and staff we spoke with understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, consent and the implications for their patients.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care and followed the service’s policies related to consent and mental capacity.

Consent for surgery was a 2-stage process and included discussion about the benefits, potential complications, the risks and alternative options. Patient consent was checked at various points before they went to the operating theatre and immediately prior to surgery. Audits of staff compliance with the consent policy showed the service achieved 100% for the period April to June 2026.

Patients we spoke with said they were involved in decision making about their care and treatment. They could describe the risks and benefits they were told about prior to surgery.

Interpreters were used when required, to support patients to give informed consent.

Staff sought permission before sharing patient information with family or friends.