Seymour Clinic

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

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. 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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took time to interact with patients. Patients reported staff were polite, courteous and attentive. Patients told us staff treated them with kindness and respect.

Staff were seen to be considerate and empathetic towards patients. During our assessment we spoke with 3 patients, 2 patients who were undergoing procedures and 1 patient who attended the clinic for a follow up appointment. All the patients and their families were very positive about the care they received, they told us the staff were kind, caring and listened to their concerns. The patient who attended for a follow up appointment praised the nursing and medical staff for the outcome of their procedure and their caring and professional attitudes.

We also saw 10 reviews in the last 6 months which were all positive about the service. All the reviews confirmed that they had been treated well and that staff were professional, non-judgemental and understanding. They also reported that staff made them feel at ease and communicated with them throughout the procedure.

Patients told us they felt their assessments had been well planned and they were not rushed or pressurised into choosing treatments or procedures. We observed a consultation where a doctor took the time to explore the most appropriate individual options, offered alternatives, and was honest about expectations and outcomes.

Staff ensured patients’ privacy and dignity was maintained by ensuring patient’s information was kept secure, and privacy curtains were closed.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

All treatments were personalised, and staff took time to ensure that the patients’ thoughts, considerations and wishes were taken into account. Staff completed personalised communications which were always written detailing the individual’s options.

The service was flexible, provided informed choice and ensured continuity of care. Managers and staff planned and delivered care in a way that reflected people’s needs, and patients told us they had been given choices of appointment times and consultation methods to suit them. The service also offered evening procedures to suit the needs of patients working.

We saw detailed discussions took place between the doctor and patients prior to them making any decisions; this included information about the cost of the procedure. To meet the needs of all patients the service offered a finance option, whereby patients could pay for the procedure in instalments.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients we spoke with reported that the service promoted their independence, choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. All patients that we spoke with were aware of their rights to choice and control over their care. Reviews reported that the service was aware of their medical history and made sure all information was delivered clearly with no presumptions of knowledge being made.

We observed detailed discussions that took place between the doctor and patients prior to them making any decisions. These discussions were also held on procedure day, to ensure patients were still happy to go ahead.

Staff responded to people’s needs and acted to minimise any risks, concern or distress.

Staff initially identified risks at the patient’s initial consultation, to determine their suitability for their chosen procedure. Risks included but were not limited to surgical history, body mass index (BMI), allergies and lifestyle factors such as smoking.

The service also had a local anaesthetic and sedation selection and inclusion criteria for staff to refer to. This protocol allowed staff to identify high risk patients and ensure a suitable plan is made. Exclusion criteria included but was not limited to active infection, pregnancy and uncontrollable medical conditions.

Staff responded to changing patient risk; prior to, during and after their procedure. We observed risk assessments being carried out appropriately and specific risk issues being identified and communicated. For example, a patient due for a procedure had a latex allergy. This was communicated to all staff, and signage was put on the theatre doors to remind staff.

Patient pain levels were documented in all patient records we reviewed. Audit data showed pain assessment compliance was 96% between January and March 2026. Patients reported that the service made sure they were comfortable during and after their procedures.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff reported feeling valued by their leaders and their colleagues. The service provided necessary resource and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas.

All staff we spoke with told us the service was driven by a culture which normalised good wellbeing through inclusivity, active listening, and open conversations. Managers told us they operated an ‘open door’ policy and were always happy for staff to discuss, challenge and raise ideas. Staff corroborated this and said they always felt comfortable discussing ideas and raising concerns. They felt confident any issues raised would be responded to positively and dealt with appropriately.

The service did not monitor staff sickness or vacancy rates as all staff were bank and the service was only opened when procedures were booked.