Seymour Clinic

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.

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

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. An example of this was in the change in protocol around implants for breast surgery. To avoid poor patient satisfaction the service ordered 3 sample sizes of breast implants for each procedure. This was to ensure that the patient was happy with their chosen size before the surgery and to avoid cancellation or delay if they changed their mind regarding sizing.

We also observed a follow up consultation where the doctor supported the patient to make their own decisions about their care, as they wanted additional treatment in the same area. The doctor explained the procedure and risks and discussed whether the patient was suitable for the treatment. They agreed the most suitable procedure and the timeframe for treatment. The doctor recommended waiting 4 months, in line with the guidance from the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) as the patient had the procedure done 2 months ago.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people accessing their services and supported choice and continuity.

Managers planned services to meet the needs of the patients booked for surgery. All surgical procedures were pre-planned so staff could assess, and plan patients care before treatment. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people who access their service. Post operation patients told us their doctor had seen them post operatively and they were able to have as many follow up appointments as required, to ensure they were happy with their outcome and could ask any follow up questions.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. All surgical procedures were undertaken in the theatre; post procedure monitoring was done in a recovery area, and patients were able to sit in a step-down room prior to discharge.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information however, this was not available in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service provided after care information to patients verbally after any procedure however, the service did not provide information leaflets of any kind. This included information on the procedure, aftercare, local services or the patients right to complain. This meant some patients may not receive information in a way they could understand, which could affect their ability to make informed decisions. However, this was queried with leaders who reported that all patients could receive this information verbally or in writing via email if requested.

All consent forms we reviewed were provided in English and the service did not highlight whether they were available in accessible formats such as easy read form or other languages.

The service was aware to make notifications to external bodies including the care quality commission (CQC) but reported that they have not had an incident that required notification or referral to other bodies.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, it was unclear whether the service monitored and managed complaints appropriately.

The service did not share whether they had received any complaints in the last 6 months and did not have a complaints policy. This meant that we could not be assured that the service was monitoring complaints or managing them appropriately.

Although the service did not share the number of complaints they had received, all staff we spoke with were aware of the complaints and compliments process and the service made appropriate changes in response. An example of this was patient complaints about the environment of the clinic. In response, the service completed a full refurbishment of the clinic with the input of staff. Since the refurbishment the service had received compliments about the environment.

Patients we spoke with were aware of how to raise a concern. We observed posters around the service encouraging and explaining how patients could raise a complaint if they were not satisfied with their care. The poster also explained that patients could contact the Care Quality Commission (CQC), along with the remits of the commission.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed. However, the service did not monitor delays or cancellations.

The service provided cosmetic surgery for self-funded patients and ensured there was adequate staffing cover when procedures were scheduled. All procedures and surgical cases were undertaken as day cases with patients discharged on the same day.

The service did not provide audit data for delays or cancellations. This meant that we could not be assured that the service monitored delays or cancellations or used this information to identifying trends or improve access. However, the service reported that the clinic was flexible with opening hours and that procedure lists were planned according to complexity.

Staff and leaders actively 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.

Staff within the service reported that leaders promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Overall staff compliance with safeguarding adults and children training level 3 was 94% with one member of staff in the process of renewal at the time of assessment.

People were supported to plan and make informed decisions about their care and the future.

Patients were supported to plan for their procedures and the recovery period after. Patients were given clear recovery guidance after a procedure, along with advice to support healing. The service also ensured that they discussed the importance of having a chaperone to escort the patient home and provide support during the recovery period if needed.

The service provided follow up appointments after all procedures to remove sutures and check progress. We spoke with a patient who had a procedure 2 months prior, who reported that the recovery period was going smoothly due to the support provided by the service.