SpaMedica Taunton

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service thoroughly assessed and reviewed patients’ health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Support was provided, where appropriate, to maximise their involvement.

Referrals were sent by ophthalmic providers and patients’ own GPs. The service had a clear exclusion criterion in place to determine which patients were appropriate for care.

Staff completed a health assessment of the patient from the point of arrival at the service. Clinical staff then undertook comprehensive health assessments and risk analysis. This included blood pressure and social care questions. We observed the staff ask about past medical history, medication and allergies. We reviewed 9 patient records and noted no concerns.

Staff had received specific training to support them to engage with patients with additional needs. Mandatory training included supporting patients with dementia and patients with learning disabilities and autism. Prior to an appointment, the booking team sent a care questionnaire to the patient. This care questionnaire asked patients about their social history. This helped the medical team assess the patient’s needs. The service had processes to book interpreters if a person required communication support during an appointment.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver care and treatment according to best practice and national guidance. There were processes to manage and review policies and procedures to make sure they were up to date. Evidence-based care and treatment was filtered through the governance meetings and shared with staff at regular team meetings and morning huddles.

Staff were able to access policies and processes. All policies were centrally uploaded and alerted staff to new policies for them to read. This supported staff to provide consistent care across the service as the policies were identical in all provider locations they worked. Leaders could see who had read the policies and reminded staff who were overdue.

Staff followed established service-wide governance processes to ensure compliance and maintain standards. Staff consistently reviewed performance and compliance using a comprehensive audit schedule. Managers used appraisals and supervision to monitor and improve performance. There were policies to manage conduct and support performance improvements.

Patients’ nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance. The service had hot and cold drinks available and biscuits for patients’ post-surgery. If there were long delays to appointments or surgery, the staff provided patients with food.

Care was coordinated effectively between staff, teams and services. Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver patients’ care. Staff requested care summaries from the GP where required. All patients who needed surgery attended a pre-operative assessment to ensure they had all the information they needed and were fit to proceed with surgery.

There were multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings when a patient had specific needs. The hospital manager shared a recent case where they liaised with a patient’s cancer team to arrange surgery around their cancer treatment plan.

We observed staff worked well together with good communication irrespective of profession. The teams used an online platform to communicate updates and needs throughout the day. Staff told us this method worked well. The team had a short morning and afternoon meeting to discuss any issues.

On days where surgery was performed, a theatre safety huddle occurred at the start of each operating list. We observed patients being discussed, highlighting any additional needs. Surgeons and scrub nurses worked together to make sure patients received the correct lens prior to surgery.

For those patients who had any issues with surgery, staff conducted wellness calls with the patient.

All locations under the provider worked together to maximise efficiency and reduce waiting times to benefit patients. Due to changes in workload some staff were supporting colleagues at other SpaMedica locations.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Patient information and leaflets were displayed on large noticeboards throughout the service. There was a lot of advice regarding eye health displayed. However, information was not available in Braille but staff were able to print leaflets in large font.

Staff provided relevant information promoting healthy lifestyles and support to patients on an individual basis where this could improve eye health. This included individualised postoperative advice following surgery in a detailed leaflet which the staff went through with the patient at the point of discharge.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider monitored all patients’ care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patients themselves.

Staff monitored and improved quality and outcomes by taking part in regular audits including national clinical audits. SpaMedica Taunton activity did not yet fall within the validated reporting window for the current National Ophthalmology Database Audit. This audit measured the outcomes of cataract surgery. Internally the Board monitored their performance in particular Posterior Capsule Rupture (PCR) which was a complication of cataract surgery. SpaMedica Taunton level of no PCR was 99.76% which was better than the national average of 98.9%.

Monthly audits were conducted for each surgeon to monitor effectiveness of treatments. These were reviewed and monitored by SpaMedica’s consultant team. Quarterly meetings were held to assess surgeon performance and address any concerns. SpaMedica benchmarked themselves nationally and ensured alignment with Royal College of Ophthalmology standards and expected visual outcomes.

Optometrists had regular performance reviews. A clinical audit was undertaken by the Regional Optometry Lead. An audit in November 2025 showed some gaps in compliance for some staff against the quality markers. The provider assured us any staff who had not met compliance received a tailored support plan. A recent audit from March 2026 of one of the optometrists showed no concerns with compliance.

Post-operatively, patients spent time under observation until clinical staff were satisfied it was safe for them to leave and the patient felt comfortable doing so. Staff provided post-operative instructions to each patient to make sure they recovered quickly and safely. Information included risks and emergency complications they should be aware of and the actions they should take. Contact details of SpaMedica’s support line were clearly provided.

The service monitored patient feedback following their procedures. Patient feedback from April 2025 to March 2026 demonstrated patients were overall happy with their outcomes following surgery. Positive testimonials regarding outcomes were shared on external feedback websites.

There was a considerable increase in cancellations in January 2026. The increase was primarily due to external temporary changes in commissioning. One patient commented to us they were disappointed with the increase in waiting time for surgery but felt the wait was still better than another local provider.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. Patients received information about care and treatment in a way they could understand and had appropriate support and time to make decisions. All patients were given both written and verbal information about their treatment in advance.

Staff understood the importance of ensuring patients fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. Staff clearly recorded consent in the patients’ records. Staff had the appropriate skills and knowledge to seek verbal and written informed consent before providing care and treatment to their patients. We reviewed 10 sets of patient records and found consent had been clearly recorded in each.

Consent training was completed as part of staff’s pre-assessment competency programme. Once completed, the staff member could work independently with patients. The competency was then uploaded to the staff member’s monitoring platform.

As part of their clinical audits, a consent audit was completed every 3 months, the most recent compliance for SpaMedica Taunton completed in December 2025 was 98.6%.