CES Medical - Headcorn

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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients 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 patients’ 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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

The service had systems to support patients with a variety of additional needs. The clinic was fully accessible. It had a large unisex accessible toilet with a pull cord for visitors to call for help, a hearing loop and signage was clear to those with sight loss.

Managers made sure staff, patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

The provider complied with the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) is a legal requirement for organisations that provide NHS care in England. It aims to ensure that people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss can access and understand information and communicate effectively with healthcare providers. and identified, recorded and met patients’ communication and accessibility needs.

Staff offered information in a range of accessible formats and recorded individual preferences to support continuity of care. Staff assessed and reviewed reasonable adjustment needs throughout patients’ care and treatment. The provider offered flexible appointment times, longer appointments where required, support from carers, interpreting services and a choice of digital or paper-based communications.

The provider promoted equality and inclusion by considering patients’ cultural, religious and personal preferences, providing neurodiversity-aware support, and offering a choice of male or female clinician where practicable. Staff also maintained accessible, calm and welcoming environments that promoted privacy, dignity and comfort for patients. The provider monitored reasonable adjustment requests and used this information to identify opportunities to improve accessibility and patient experience.

As per Royal College of Ophthalmology guidelines the service told private or self-pay patients about all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. Patients responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or partially), received a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the services to be provided, including the amount and method of fees payment. Where possible, the service always provided this in writing prior to the commencement of the treatment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant. During the assessment, we saw that the clinic understood the diverse health and care needs of its patients and the local community and delivered care that was joined‑up, flexible, and supportive of choice and continuity. The service worked effectively with general practitioners, optometrists, and secondary care providers to ensure clear referral and shared‑care pathways, which supported coordinated and timely care. Staff offered flexible appointment arrangements and community‑based clinics to improve access and reduce unnecessary hospital attendance. Care records showed continuity for patients with long‑term ophthalmic conditions, with efforts made to see the same clinician where possible and clear communication when this was not achievable. The service made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs, responded to changes in patients’ circumstances, and involved patients in decisions about their care, which promoted choice, continuity, and a person‑centred approach.

Managers ensured the service contacted patients who did not attend appointments to make alternative arrangements. The service tracked its DNA (Did Not Attend) rate, which averaged between 1% and 5%. It maintained this low rate by sending appointment reminders via email and SMS and by telephoning patients the day before their appointment to confirm attendance. These actions helped maximise clinic capacity and reduced the risk of patients missing appointments.

The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

All leaflets were in electronic format to ensure patients only received the most recent version. The provider printed and posted leaflets to those who requested this.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health. We asked if information was available in alternative languages and were shown how required leaflets could be printed as needed. Information was also available on the service’s website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a compliments log and had populated it with comments from Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback, verbal compliments, photographs of gifts received, and thank-you cards. Staff regularly updated the log with positive feedback and tokens of appreciation received from patients. The log provided a valuable reflection of the caring, compassionate and effective approach demonstrated by staff at all levels within the service.

We reviewed the compliments log at assessment, and it contained 125 compliments. Patients frequently praised the kindness of staff throughout their journey, the high standard of care they received, and the knowledge and professionalism demonstrated by team members from reception through to the surgeons. Patients also highlighted the friendly, calming and clean environment, which helped create a relaxing experience, particularly for those who felt anxious.

The provider recorded compliments alongside complaints and survey feedback and reported this information to the Clinical Governance Committee. Staff also discussed feedback, themes and learning during monthly governance meetings.

Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and patients could do so in a range of accessible ways. People, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

The service reported no complaints in the 12 months before the assessment. Patients could take any unresolved complaints to a third-party organisation or to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, if an NHS patient. Learning from feedback or concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement.

The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We found the service ensured patients could access the care, support, and treatment they needed at the right time. The clinic operated clear referral and triage processes, which enabled staff to prioritise patients based on clinical need and respond promptly to changes in symptoms. Appointment systems allowed flexibility for urgent reviews, follow‑up care, and ongoing management of long‑term eye conditions. Staff provided timely advice, clear safety‑netting information, and onward referrals where required, ensuring patients knew how to seek further help if their condition changed. These arrangements supported timely access to care and helped prevent unnecessary delays in assessment or treatment.

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards,

Managers monitored waiting times and made sure patients could access services when needed and receive treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets.

Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning and delivery. The service had systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patients’ experiences and outcomes. The service identified these patients through referral information, clinical assessments, and ongoing conversations, including people with sensory impairment, learning disabilities, neurodiversity, language barriers, mobility issues, or social disadvantages. Staff used this information to prioritise appointments, adjust communication methods, and offer additional support tailored to individual circumstances.

Leaders supported staff to respond flexibly to individual needs by making reasonable adjustments, involving carers or advocates where appropriate, arranging interpreters, and adapting follow-up arrangements. Care records showed clinicians considered both clinical and social factors when planning treatment, helping to reduce barriers and promote equitable care. People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpreting services by telephone.

Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer if they wished. We saw staff supported patients to plan for important life changes and gave them time to make informed decisions about their future care. Clinicians discussed the long‑term implications of eye conditions, treatment options, and possible progression in a clear and timely way, particularly where conditions could affect independence, driving, employment, or daily activities. Staff explained expected outcomes and reviewed options over more than one appointment, where appropriate, allowing patients time to reflect and ask questions.

The service also supported forward planning by involving carers or family members with patient consent and by signposting patients to additional support services when required. Clinicians tailored follow‑up arrangements to reflect individual circumstances and ensured patients understood how to access advice if their situation changed. This approach helped patients feel prepared, supported, and able to make informed decisions about their care and future wellbeing.

Staff gave patients discharge summaries to take home and provided a copy for their GP.