Practice Plus Group Hospital, Southampton

Updated 8 October 2026

Practice Plus Hospital Southampton is an independent hospital located within the Royal South Hants Hospital site in Southampton. The hospital provides planned surgical care for adults and young people aged 16 to 18 years. Services include orthopaedic, ear nose and throat, gynaecology, ophthalmology, oral and general surgery. The hospital is a dedicated elective care service and does not provide accident and emergency services. Most patients using the service were NHS-funded, 98%.

The hospital has 19 inpatient beds, a day surgery unit, 5 operating theatres, 2 endoscopy suites, outpatient and diagnostic imaging facilities, physiotherapy services and a recovery area. The main activity at the location was surgery.

We carried out an unannounced assessment on 9 July 2026. During the assessment, we reviewed 6 patient records, spoke with 4 patients using the service and 18 members of staff, observed care and treatment, and reviewed a range of documents and performance data.

The surgery service remained rated Good overall. Staff treated patients with kindness, compassion and respect and involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked effectively across multidisciplinary teams to plan and deliver care. The service had systems to support safe care, including pre-assessment processes, infection prevention and control arrangements, and incident reporting systems. Staff identified and planned care for patients with additional needs and made reasonable adjustments to improve access and experience.

At this assessment, we found previous regulatory breaches had been addressed. The hospital had improved oversight of cleaning arrangements, emergency trolley checks and medicines governance requirements identified at the previous inspection.

However, we identified breaches of regulations relating to governance and safe care and treatment. Although leaders used audits, monitoring systems and governance processes to oversee quality and safety, these arrangements were not always effective in ensuring learning, training compliance and some clinical processes were consistently embedded across the service.

Updated 29 May 2026

We conducted a site visit assessment of the service on 9 July 2026. We assessed 33 quality statements across safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led.

The surgery service remained rated Good overall. Staff treated patients with kindness, compassion and respect and involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked effectively across multidisciplinary teams to plan and deliver care. The service had systems to support safe care, including pre-assessment processes, infection prevention and control arrangements, and incident reporting systems. Staff identified and planned care for patients with additional needs and made reasonable adjustments to improve access and experience.

At this assessment, we found that previous regulatory breaches had been addressed. The hospital had improved oversight of cleaning arrangements, emergency trolley checks and medicines governance requirements identified at the previous inspection.

However, we identified breaches of regulations relating to governance and safe care and treatment. Although leaders used audits, monitoring systems and governance processes to oversee quality and safety, these arrangements were not always effective in ensuring learning, training compliance and some clinical processes were consistently embedded across the service.

Updated 20 January 2022

We did not previously rate Diagnostic Imaging. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led.

Updated 20 January 2022

Our rating of this service went down. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Most staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• There were concerns with the management of the resuscitation trolley which contained items which were out of date.
• The service did not always control infection risk well. Staff were not seen to use hand sanitiser, entering or leaving the department. Chairs were not cleaned during the day.
• Staff were not always discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff did not always interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

Outpatients was part of the hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well led.