SpaMedica Taunton

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

This means we looked for evidence the service met people’s needs.

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 evidence showed an excellent standard. The provider 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.

Patients who used services were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. Care was centred around patients and their needs. Bookings for the service were managed centrally by the provider. This ensured patients could attend the service best suited to their needs. Patient needs were stated on the referral. Head office used this information to plan for the procedure. Following pre-assessment clinic, patients were advised of the next available date for surgery.

Patients understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. The hospital manager explained a recent example of patient centred care where they had worked with an individual with a learning disability, to attend familiarisation session with the environment to ensure they felt comfortable prior to surgery. In addition, due to the requirement for a specific lens, surgery was carried out by a surgeon from another SpaMedica location.

The service was fully accessible to patients with limited mobility or in a wheelchair. Wheelchairs were available. A hearing loop was provided. The service offered free complimentary patient transport. This reduced barriers to treatment for patients who had mobility challenges or lived alone and would not be able to travel following treatment. We observed a patient’s notes being highlighted with a designated sticker to show they required transport so the patient coordinator would liaise with them regarding return travel and for any future appointments.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. The staff communicated with the community optometrists and patients’ GPs both pre- and post-surgery to ensure there was continuity of care. The hospital manager spoke of the clear referral pathways they had with their local acute NHS provider.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a coordinated way that met their assessed needs.

The evidence showed a good standard. The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was a lot of information available on the notice boards around the hospital. There were various leaflets that provided information on procedures in the waiting area. A large poster demonstrated the patient pathway for someone having cataract surgery. Information could also be made available in other languages. Staff explained they could get leaflets in larger font, though there were no leaflets in braille.

Patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up to date in a way they could understand. Patient information was handled at head office to book pre-assessment appointments and capture preferred method of contact. Patients could receive confirmation by email or printed letter. Patients were advised they would not be able to drive following surgery. We observed patients being provided with written information following their surgery. Patient reminders were automated from head office. The hospital manager explained how there was now a picture booklet for patients who had dementia or who were unable to read.

The website was informative and easy to navigate. It provided information on location, facilities available and how to get a referral to SpaMedica. It also provided clear information on the pre-operative appointment and information on popular questions.

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

Patients knew how to give feedback and raise concerns about their care experiences. This was available in a range of accessible ways. There was a copy of the complaint procedure available in the reception. The manager shared feedback from complaints with staff when required or during monthly cascade meetings.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement. There was information about how to make a complaint available in the general waiting area. The manager advised they had received 9 complaints over the past 12 months and 2 written compliments.

Patients were all asked to provide feedback at their post-operative check. This was monitored weekly to ensure no patients were missed. At the time of assessment, the score was 100% positive feedback.

The evidence showed an excellent standard. The provider was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured patients could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way which worked for them. The service had clear exclusion criteria and accepted the majority of patients including patients with bariatric needs but did not accept patients who required sedation. Patients requiring sedation were supported at other SpaMedica locations and attendance was coordinated through the head office.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible and timely. Head office received the referral and booked the pre-assessment appointment. At pre-assessment the patient co-ordinator booked the theatre date, and post theatre would book the 4–6-week post operative appointment. According to NHS data, the number of patients seen within 18 weeks was better than the national average for independent health providers. SpaMedica Taunton’s average November 2025 was 96%. We spoke to some patients who were very impressed with the short wait for their first appointment.

There was ample free parking available. The provider offered a free door-to-door transport service for those who needed it. There was a specific criterion as the person needed to be able to get into the vehicle independently. This was advertised on their website. Patients requiring reasonable adjustments were supported with wheelchair access at entrance and exit points. There were accessible slopes and handrails throughout the service.

Staff provided examples of how they could support people to access the service and adjust or make accommodations to help with their experience. People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service; there were translation services available to support people.

There was an emergency support line for all patients to call 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 and leaders considered information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and looked at ways to improve this.

Appointments were at a set length in line with their policy, though appointments were of a double length if a patient had bariatric needs. This allowed additional time for patient transfer as the patient may need to use the hoist.

The provider’s policies supported the effective delivery of the applicable equality and human rights legislation. SpaMedica had mandatory training for staff on equality, diversity, learning disability and autism and sensory impairment. This ensured all staff had the right skills to support all patients.

Patients were able to cancel over the phone. They could call the call centre who then cancelled the appointment on the system and reorganised. We spoke to a patient who had needed to move their appointment and said it was easy to do.

The evidence showed a good standard. People 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 for the future. Each patient had a personalised care and treatment plan tailored to their individual needs. We observed patients were given discharge information about their care and the impact it would have on their lifestyle and hobbies. An example was the risks post-surgery regarding gardening and risk of infection post-surgery.

The provider had a national sight support team that offered free practical and emotional support to patients living with sight loss or low vision.

Staff worked well together as an effective multidisciplinary team throughout the patient journey from the initial referral to the pre-operative assessment and throughout the patient’s surgery.