CES Medical - Headcorn

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

The service worked with patients to understand and manage risks. Care met patients' needs in a way which was safe and supportive and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them.

When people communicated their needs, staff managed this in a positive way which protected their rights and dignity.

We looked for evidence that staff treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion. We assessed the levels of privacy and dignity afforded to patients. We asked patients about their experiences. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take patients’ wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This is the first assessment since registering to provide a regulated activity.

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 patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff introduced themselves to patients and told them their role. Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. They took their time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness. On the day of the assessment, we spoke with 4 patients who were very happy with the care they had received at the service.

Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential. During the assessment we observed that consultation rooms were closed and no-one could overhear confidential information.

The service treated patient as individuals and made sure patients’ care, support and treatment met patient’s needs and preferences.

The provider collected patient feedback through the Friends and Family Test (FFT). The service received 33 responses with a score of "very good" and 3 responses with a score of "good". Overall, 92% of respondents scored the service as very good and 100% scored it as good overall. Staff routinely received verbal feedback from patients about their experience of care and treatment. This feedback was recorded and shared with the wider team to support learning and service improvement. We reviewed the feedback provided and found it to be consistently positive and highly complementary, with patients describing staff as caring, professional, and supportive throughout their treatment journey. The sharing of feedback helped staff recognise good practice and maintain high standards of patient care.

Patients consistently praised the friendly, caring and supportive staff, as well as the professionalism, clinical confidence and clear communication demonstrated by the team. They also highlighted the efficient and well-organised service, positive outcomes and the clean, comfortable environment.

The service reviewed and discussed free-text feedback during FFT feedback meetings and took action to address areas for improvement. After patients reported that they had not received pre-operative information sheets, staff introduced telephone calls one to two days before surgery to confirm appointment details and ensure patients had received all relevant documentation. Staff also resent documents or provided printed copies when necessary.

Some patients suggested receiving a drink after surgery. The service confirmed that staff routinely offered hot and cold drinks following procedures and continued to maintain this practice.

Patients also commented on the limited seating available in the waiting room. In response, the service explored options to purchase additional chairs while ensuring sufficient space remained for wheelchair users and patients who used mobility aids. The team recognised this as an ongoing area for improvement.

We reviewed five care records and found that care was tailored to patients’ individual needs and circumstances. Clinicians completed patient‑specific clinical assessments and developed personalised management plans based on diagnosis, disease severity, risk factors, co‑existing conditions, and previous ophthalmic history. They recorded discussions about treatment options, including risks, benefits, and alternatives, and documented procedure‑specific consent that reflected individual clinical risks. Records showed that clinicians made and documented reasonable adjustments where required, including communication support, extended appointment times, involvement of carers or family members, and use of interpreters. Treatment decisions and follow‑up intervals reflected individual clinical findings and responses to treatment rather than fixed pathways. Clinicians provided tailored safety‑netting advice and documented communication with general practitioners and other services, they reviewed outcomes at follow‑up, amending care plans where needed.

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

The service actively promoted patient independence and supported people to make informed choices about their care. We saw that patients were provided with information about their rights and treatment options, helping them to understand and exercise their choices. Clinicians provided clear, accessible information about conditions, investigations, and treatment options, including risks and benefits. They supported patients to ask questions and take time to make informed decisions. Records showed that clinicians obtained informed consent that reflected individual circumstances and confirmed that patients understood they could decline or change their decisions.

For private patients, staff usually held the initial discussion verbally and then provided a written quotation before the patient agreed to any procedure. The quotation clearly set out all anticipated costs, including the procedure itself, follow‑up appointments, and any post‑procedure medication.

The service also sent patients a copy of its terms and conditions, an invoice detailing all payments made, and any relevant patient information leaflets, ensuring patients had clear, written confirmation of financial arrangements and appropriate information before and after treatment.

We saw the service supported patients to maintain control over their care and wellbeing. Clinicians encouraged self‑management by providing tailored advice on eye care, medication use, symptom monitoring, and when to seek further help. Care records showed clinicians respected patient preferences and made reasonable adjustments to support independence and effective communication. Information about patient rights, including how to raise concerns or make complaints, was available and communicated clearly. Overall, the service demonstrated a consistent, respectful approach that empowered patients and supported autonomy.

The provider had a chaperone policy in line with General Medical Council guidance. The service offered all patients a chaperone for examinations and procedures, although it did not carry out any intimate examinations. At this location, 5 members of staff were trained to undertake the chaperone role. The service reviewed the Chaperone Policy annually and displayed a poster in reception to inform patients of their right to request a chaperone if they wished.

The staff listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patient’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We spoke with 10 patients during the inspection. One patient did not speak English as their first language and knew there was a translation service available if needed. Patients told us staff were very friendly, attentive and helpful. The information provided by staff was useful and telephone queries were responded to very quickly. They told us their appointment had arrived quickly and there was lots of parking which was really appreciated.

Staff ensured they kept mobility aids, such as walking frames or crutches within easy reach throughout peoples’ visits. Staff assisted people to stand, walk, and transfer safely when required, while encouraging independence wherever possible.

The clinic environment was designed to support people with restricted mobility. It provided wide, uncluttered corridors, step-free access, accessible seating, and clearly signposted consultation rooms located close to waiting areas. Equipment was positioned to allow easy movement throughout the clinic, and staff were available to provide prompt assistance when required. This enabled patients to navigate the clinic safely and independently while ensuring support was readily available when needed.

Staff gave patients and those close to them timely help, emotional support, and practical advice whenever it was needed. They took time to explain what to expect before, during, and after appointments or minor procedures, and they regularly checked on patients’ comfort and wellbeing. Staff spoke calmly and reassuringly, listened to concerns, and responded sensitively to signs of anxiety, distress, or uncertainty. They included family members or carers in discussions with the patient’s consent and provided clear guidance to help them offer reassurance and support.

We saw staff were empathetic and considerate of the stress associated with a busy clinic and minor operations environment. They allowed patients time to settle, adjusted their approach based on individual emotional needs, and avoided rushing interactions. Staff acknowledged fears or worries openly and offered reassurance through clear communication and a respectful manner. This approach helped patients feel supported, listened to, and emotionally safe throughout their visit.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was good at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff had access to resource and facilities for safe working. This included being able to take breaks, designated rest areas and a kitchen to make drinks and eat lunch.

Staff were able to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences and could expect a response. The provider completed an annual staff survey which mirrored the NHS staff survey programme. The 2025 staff survey showed a highly engaged workforce that generally enjoyed their work, but high workloads, staffing shortages, unclear roles, limited resources, and inconsistent flexible working strained this experience. The survey included all staff in the company and not just staff at this location. Following the survey results, the service developed an action plan to address the concerns raised and drive improvements in the identified areas. Staff we spoke with were happy and felt proud to work for the organisation. Staff told us they made a difference in patients’ lives.

Teams worked and, where relevant, learnt together. A need for conflict resolution and de-escalation training had been identified by patient facing staff. The provider sourced a training company and staff have been booked into the training as a team.

Staff had access to personalised support which recognised the diversity of a workforce with proactive and reactive measures. Staff had access to a pension, private healthcare (after 12 months of service), an employee support service (mental health support and talking therapies). As a team they have had an afternoon tea, yoga and pilates, pumpkin carving and a photography competition. They also fundraised for a local charity who supported blind people and team building activities, such as a hike and building a rocket.

Staff felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. Staff had opportunities to contribute to service development. The whole team attended workshops to improve the patient pathway for cataract and glaucoma patients.

The provider and local leaders ensured that staff with protected characteristics felt included and respected within the service. All policies had been reviewed for equality and diversity to ensure no staff were disadvantaged by the policy. Staff had been trained as mental health first aiders to support their colleagues. The provider had signed up to the NHS sexual safety at work charter.