SpaMedica Portsmouth

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 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.

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at making 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.

The service was fully accessible to patients with limited mobility or in a wheelchair. The service employed a porter who would meet and greet every patient. We saw patient feedback which stated, ‘from reception to discharge I felt comfortable with all staff’.

Patients understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. There was a sight support service which offered practical or emotional support to blind people managed by sight support officers. Staff underwent mandatory training in a range of patient needs including sensory impairment & deaf awareness.

Bookings for the service were managed centrally by the provider, this ensured patients could attend the service that was best suited to their needs and location. Patients received the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. Patients were in control of planning their care and support. They highlighted to the service in advance whether they needed mobility support.

The service offered a free transport service for all patients that required this. This reduce barriers to treatment for patients who may struggle with mobility or who live alone and would not be able to travel following treatment. In addition to this they also offered all patients attending from the Isle of Wight transport to and from mainland ferry terminals. This additional helped reduce the financial burden on this group of patients.

The service monitored patients’ pain using a score between 1 and 4 when receiving or recovering from treatment. Staff gave patients advice on how to alleviate pain. If a patient’s pain score was recorded as high, this would automatically alert leaders, and the patient would receive a courtesy call the following day to see if they required additional support.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service provided care and treatment to patients that considered the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. The staff actively involved themselves in the community and charity work.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. The staff communicated with the community optometrists and patients GP’s both pre- and post-surgery to ensure there was continuity of care.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up to date in a way they could understand, and which met their communication needs. There were leaflets, including complaints leaflets, in several different languages and display signs in fonts that were larger for those with poor eyesight. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

The provider website had patient story videos that discussed the impact of treatment on their lives. These covered areas such as surgical experience, reassurance, and patient feedback. All videos had subtitles to support patients with hearing loss.

They provided face-to-face interpreters or telephone interpreters where patients required, including British Sign Language. There were ‘spell it out’ sign language posters to assist staff with British sign language.

There were large infographic boards throughout the hospital that displayed what would happen during the patient journey. These could also be provided in leaflets to support patients with a learning disability or who struggle to read. There was also a sign in the main waiting and outpatient’s areas advising patients when the next available surgical date at the service was for new patients.

There was a display that showed the names and photographs of all staff, their role and the area they worked in. This helped familiarise patients with all staff in the service.

There were notice boards in the waiting areas to provide patients with patient focused information. These included glaucoma and dementia support.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. We saw staff updating a patients partner on their time to surgery and how they were doing. The service had standard operating procedures to keep staff informed of the correct procedures and to ensure consistency.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Electronic records were stored securely within password protected systems, access to records was monitored centrally to ensure staff were complying with policy regarding access. Paper records were kept in supervised areas where unauthorised access could not occur. Historical records were stored in a secure area which required and access pass. Once these were no longer required at the location, they were transported to centralised secure storage to comply with retention of medical records legislation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. All patients we spoke to were happy with their care but knew how to complain if they were not. The complaints procedure was displayed in the waiting room for patients to read. We saw that there were forms on raising concerns in the main waiting area and in the outpatients waiting room. Information on how to make a complaint was also available at the service and on SpaMedica website. The complaint procedure outlined the stages of the complaint process.

There were paper feedback forms in the reception area and patients were asked to fill these in after every appointment. They were also sent a feedback form online to complete. Sight support officers assisted patients who needed help with filling in forms. Results showed 100% of patients rated their overall experience as either very good or good.

The service had received no complaints since they had opened.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service 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 that worked for them. Patients were referred to SpaMedica by their opticians or by their GP. A central bookings team called each patient to offer them a choice of appointment date. They were sent confirmation letters and rang or text patients with a reminder 2 days prior to their appointment. It was easy to rearrange appointments if patients needed to.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely. It was delivered in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements. Managers monitored waiting times and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets. NHS Patients were treated within an average of 5 weeks, which was better than the NHS 18-week referral to treatment time. When a patient arrived for pre-assessment, the next availability of their surgical procedure was within 2 weeks. There was a provider level target of offering surgery within 7 weeks.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. The location was designed to be compliant with the disability discrimination act (DDA) to ensure there were facilities within the building to support adult patients and staff with physical, sensory, mental health, learning disabilities and or autism, including hearing impairment and visual aids. Although DDA was replaced by the Equality Act 2010, the term "DDA compliance" is still used as shorthand for meeting essential accessibility requirements, which benefit not only disabled people but also the elderly and those with temporary mobility issues. Patients requiring reasonable adjustments were supported with wheelchair access at entrance and exit points. There were accessible slopes and handrails throughout the service.

We saw there were accessible toilet facilities with moving and handling aids. These were also designed to ensure bariatric patients could use them without restriction. We saw the service had a hoist to support the safe transfer of patients with physical restrictions. There was a range of hoist sizes to ensure this was used safely and all appropriate were trained in its use.

Staff assessed patients’ needs in relation to language, hearing, sight, and mobility in advance of their attendance. Staff understood and applied a policy on meeting the information and communication needs of patients with a disability or sensory loss. The hospital had information in large print, and a hearing loop was available to assist patients wearing a hearing aid. The staff ensured there were no communication barriers by providing interpreters and leaflets in different languages, and formats to suit all levels of comprehension. This included a pictorial easy read version of patient journeys to support patients with a learning disability or autism.

The service offered a free door-to-door transport service for those who needed it. There was a specific criterion which was that the person needed to be able to get onto the vehicle independently. The service included space for a carer or relative to accompany them if needed. All drivers had basic life support training and disclosure and barring services checks. There was also a local taxi service available, and staff arranged a taxi for patients if required free of charge. Patients we spoke with told us that the porter who met them when they arrived immediately made them feel welcome and cared for.

Patients could access the services when they needed to, without physical or digital barriers. The service was open 8am until 6pm Monday to Saturday. Managers told us currently there was not the demand for evening appointments as the service had only recently opened, but if there was, they would provide this. There was an emergency support line 24 hours a day 7 days a week. When patients required emergency treatment, they could attend an alternative location which was around 30 mins drive from the service. If a patient received emergency treatment at the other location, details would be noted on the patient record and an incident form was completed if required.

We reviewed staffing data and saw there was appropriate medical cover at all times to maintain patient safety.

There were community optometrists registered with the service who completed accreditation scheme sessions training them in what to look for in post-operative patients. This was of benefit to patients as they could be seen in the community close to where they lived. This also meant the service was able to see more patients as some patients attended their community optometrists for post-operative checks rather than returning to the service.

The service was transparent with patients about their outcomes. Quality accounts including patient outcomes were published on the provider website for all patients to see.

We scored the service as 3. 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 are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and looked at ways to improve this. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service provider had identified a need to further support patients attending SpaMedica Portsmouth from the Isle of Wight due to increased travel times and financial implications. In response to this the provider had recently opened a satellite centre to support these patients. The satellite was overseen by leaders at SpaMedica Portsmouth. This service meant patients who lived on the Isle of Wight could access outpatient appointments closer to home, reducing travel time and costs to these patients. Leaders told us that patients had welcomed this and spoke positively about the impact it made in accessing care.

At provider level the ‘no exclusions’ working group had also looked at the staff they employed, and they had realised they had no partially sighted staff. They intended to reach out into this community to offer recruitment opportunities.

We scored the service as 3. 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, including at the end of their life.

Patients we spoke with felt the information they were given was clear and accurate and provided in a way they could understand. Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan for the future. Patients had personalised care and treatment plans to suit their needs based on their personal hobbies and lifestyle.

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. There was input from optometrists, surgeons, and nurses, to ensure patients were fully informed and supported in their care in line with national guidance.