CHEC - Kings Norton

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 newly registered 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.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Whilst we did not see any patients at the time of inspection we reviewed the patient feedback. This demonstrated patient satisfaction was at 100% in September 2025 for the services the clinic provided. Patients felt that the staff took time to discuss the procedure with them and could not do enough for them. There had been two written complaints in the year January to September 2025. These complaints had been investigated, and actions have been taken to address the issues raised by patients. The service had a patient experience improvement plan which demonstrated the actions that the service had taken to address the feedback from patients. This included issues such as translators, transport and comfort of the waiting room. The plan outlined the actions taken such as a tablet to assist interpretation, provision of leaflets and hot drinks in the waiting room.

The endoscopy staff had access to a room they could use if a consultant required a confidential and private discussion with patients, such as when an obvious cancerous tumour had been found or any issues spotted during a colonoscopy.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service made adjustments for people’s individual needs. For example, we saw that an interpreter had been booked for a patient in April 2025. The service had a tablet available to contact a variety of interpreters, however, the diversity of the staff employed meant most languages spoken by the community were also spoken by the staff.

Patients with limited mobility undertook an operating bed assessment prior to them booking for surgery. This meant they were asked to get on and off the operating bed to ensure that the clinic could meet their needs.

Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Leaflets were available on treatments and conditions of the eye. These were in English but were printed using yellow and black so that patients with sight issues could see them more easily. The provider was currently reviewing their translation service to ensure it was inclusive. The service had a hearing loop available, disabled toilets and wide corridors and doors for wheelchair use. Staff were aware of dietary requirements and had a basic range of food available to give patients.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. All patients’ procedures were day case. The service kept the patients in the clinic for the shortest of times possible therefore maintaining their independence. Patients had the procedure explained to them and constant reassurance and information was given to them. This ensured that they were part of their care and treatment. Consultants explained the procedure when taking consent which was checked at their initial appointment. Staff also ensured that patients understood what would be happening during their procedure.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Patients received a pre-assessment phone call. This included discussing any particular risk issues for patients including those who were at risk of falling, used mobility aids or had physical ailments that required specialist care. Staff could then plan for any risks which had been identified. This included putting patients living with dementia first on an operating list so they were in the clinic for the shortest possible time. Staff ensured that patients living with dementia had a carer with them so that reassurance could be provided by a person they recognised.

Staff Identified additional needs for patients and ensured the facilities were available such as the hearing loop and the sensory kit for patients living with dementia or those who were neurodivergent.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were proud to work for the clinic and the provider. They felt included in decision making which affected them. An example of this was the redesign of the checklists used prior to the operation. The senior team reviewed these and produced a draft checklist. All staff were then able to offer their opinions on how this would work for them before the checklist was amended and put into a pilot. This ensured that the checklist was appropriate for the patient, the staff and the managers.

Staff felt they had sufficient staff to provide patient centered care. If they were concerned, they felt able to approach the clinic manager with any issues. There was a daily huddle to discuss the days workload and to identify any challenges as well as promote learning.

There were several ways in which the provider supported staff. Staff had access to a mental health partner who would support staff with workplace stress. Staff sickness rates were on average 1.6% for the previous seven months. This is lower than the national average. Staff were able to access private medical and dental healthcare at a discounted rate. The provider had a contract with a technology firm so that staff could access technology such as tablets and phones at a discounted rate.

There was an online platform to recognise staff within the unit and for those going the extra mile. You could choose any colleague from across the organisation and post a comment on how well they did in a particular instance. The platform then sent an email to that member of staff to recognise their positive behaviour. Staff appraisals included conversations about career progression. We met two members of staff who had been supported to develop and had been promoted because of this.

The provider undertook a number of events which supported charities and provided team bonding for staff. For example, staff had entered a charity run. The team also undertook other charity events for the ophthalmology charity Fight for Sight. The clinic hosted a charity sweet box at the main reception where all donations went to the charity.