CES Medical - Chatham

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. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 service gathered feedback through patient surveys and responded to concerns. Leaders told us they used the ‘friends and family’ test to get feedback about care. The NHS Friends and Family Test is an anonymous, national feedback tool that allows patients to rate their experience of services (from "very good" to "very poor"). Leaders contacted patients who rated their experience poor or very poor and invited them to make a formal complaint so the service could understand the issues and make improvements.

Comments from patients included ‘consultants were knowledgeable, friendly, efficient and communicated information well. I noticed they used the most up to date equipment and apparatus when taking scans. There was plenty of parking which facilitated a stress-free visit’. ‘My appointment was regarded as urgent I received my appointment within a few days of referral. X explained the condition clearly and precisely and was very personable’. ‘Mr X was the first person to actually diagnose my condition. Helpful and courteous.’

We reviewed 5 care records and saw these were tailored to individual needs and circumstances. Care records in the community ophthalmology clinic demonstrated that clinicians delivered care tailored to 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, and they reviewed outcomes at follow‑up, amending care plans where needed.

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

We saw the service actively promoted patient independence and ensured people understood their rights and 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, involved carers only with consent, 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, 6 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 4 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 layout of the clinic further supported people with restricted mobility. The service provided wide, uncluttered corridors, step‑free access, accessible seating, and clearly signed consultation rooms located close to waiting areas. Staff positioned equipment to allow easy movement through the clinic and helped promptly when needed. This environment enabled patients to move around safely and independently, while ensuring support was readily available when required.

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 did 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. The leadership team developed an action plan to address the concerns identified and support improvements across these 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. The also did fundraising 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.