CES Medical - Chatham

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.

During the assessment, we found that the service fully supported patients who were non‑verbal or who had complex communication needs to engage in their care. Staff used a range of communication aids and approaches tailored to individual needs, which enabled patients to express themselves and participate in decision‑making as far as possible. The service provided staff with communication‑support training at induction to ensure they understood how to meet different communication needs.

Where required, staff used alternative communication methods, including written communication, visual aids, and gesture‑based interaction, to support understanding. Patients were encouraged to use their own communication tools, such as communication boards or digital devices, and staff accommodated these within consultations. With patient consent, staff worked closely with carers, advocates, and family members to support communication, particularly where patients relied on familiar individuals to interpret their needs and preferences. The service also arranged professional interpreting services or specialist communication support when appropriate.

Staff identified communication needs at the earliest opportunity and clearly recorded them in the patient record system so that all staff could make appropriate adjustments. Training and guidance supported staff to recognise and respond to different communication needs in a respectful and person‑centred way. These measures promoted inclusion, dignity, and effective communication and ensured that patients with complex communication needs accessed care safely and equitably.

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 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; however, the clinic had very low numbers of non=attendance.

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 service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about treatment plans.

Between March 2025 and March 2026, CES Medical Ltd received 8 formal complaints across the service. Four complaints related to the Chatham location and 4 related to Rainham. At the time of the assessment, one complaint remained unresolved, and the service had arranged a meeting involving the Clinical Operations Manager and Clinical Lead to discuss the matter with the consultant involved.

The service resolved 75% of complaints within 14 working days, in line with their complaints policy. On average, they resolved complaints within 26 days. The service did not record solicitor‑led correspondence within the complaints log and instead directed these directly to Human Resources and the Medical Lead, in accordance with internal processes. Over the previous 12 months, the service received 3 legal letters, all of which closed without any action following the provision of medical records. The service reported no complaints escalated to the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service since registration.

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 investigated complaints or concerns thoroughly, and patients received a response in good time. The service dealt with complaints in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. We reviewed a sample of formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the time frame set out in the local policy.

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 complaints and 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 time frames 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. Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were more likely to experience inequality in access, experience, or outcomes and adjusted care in response. 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 and proactively, including making reasonable adjustments, involving carers or advocates with consent, arranging interpreters, and adapting follow‑up arrangements to reduce barriers to care. Care records showed that clinicians considered both clinical and social factors when planning treatment, and staff responded promptly when patients’ needs changed. This approach helped reduce inequalities and ensured patients most at risk of poorer experiences or outcomes received personalised, 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.