You are here

Archived: The London Eye Hospital Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

The London Eye Hospital is a private hospital providing a range of eye treatments and surgical procedures to adults. All patients are self-funding. Although they offer treatments for a wide range of eye conditions, they specialise in lens implants and cataract treatment. One of the procedures carried out as part of the service is lens implants for patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) which is a progressive disease of the macula (the central area of the retina) and a cause of sight loss. The total number of lens implant surgeries carried out between September 2016 and September 2017 was 379.

The London Eye Hospital is operated by The London Eye Hospital Limited. There are two locations linked to London Eye Hospital Limited, namely 4 Harley Street and 29a Wimpole Street. Both locations are named The London Eye Hospital. Number 4 Harley Street provides the outpatient service for the hospital where pre and post-operative consultations take place. Number 29a Wimpole Street is the site where all the surgical procedures take place. This report relates to 29a Wimpole Street only.

We carried out this inspection in response to concerns received in August 2017 about the type of lens implanted in surgery between 2014 and 2015 at the Wimpole Street location and some aspects of pre and post-operative care and treatment provided at this hospital. We responded to these concerns by carrying out an unannounced inspection on 11 and 16 October 2017. The inspection did not address all our key lines of enquiry but focused only on the issues raised by the information received. The inspection focused on safeguarding, consent, complaints, patient outcomes, and governance arrangements. Prior to this responsive inspection, we had carried out a comprehensive inspection of the service in December 2016.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

We did not rate this service. The inspection focused only on the issues raised by the information received by us in August 2017. The inspection did not look at all our key lines of enquiry but focused on specific aspects of the service.

We found the following:

  • Three out of 16 staff had not completed safeguarding training at the time of our inspection. Staff subsequently completed this training following the inspection.

  • Staff we spoke with during the inspection demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and escalating concerns.

  • Staff had not completed mental capacity training at the time of our inspection. Staff  subsequently completed this training following the inspection.

Effective

Insufficient evidence to rate

Updated 8 February 2018

We did not rate this service. The inspection focused only on the issues raised by the information received by us in August 2017. The inspection did not look at all our key lines of enquiry but focused on specific aspects of the service.

We found the following:

  • Staff sought patients’ consent and explained risks of surgery at various stages of the consultation process.

  • The hospital had a consent policy and staff explained the risks involved in lens implant surgery to patients at various stages of care and treatment.

  • There was no routine monitoring of patients’ outcomes to give an overall measure of effectiveness.

  • There was no indication in patients’ records that the service monitored compliance with the seven-day ‘cooling off’ period or that it had been discussed with patients.

Caring

Insufficient evidence to rate

Updated 8 February 2018

We did not rate this service. The inspection focused only on the issues raised by the information received by us in August 2017. The inspection did not look at all our key lines of enquiry but focused on specific aspects of the service.

We found the following:

  • Staff maintained patients’ privacy and dignity during consultations.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

We did not rate this service. The inspection focused only on the issues raised by the information received by us in August 2017. The inspection did not look at all our key lines of enquiry but focused on specific aspects of the service.

We found the following :

  • The service had a system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints, however, not all complaints had been responded to within 20 working days as per the hospital’s policy.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 February 2018

We did not rate this service. The inspection focused only on the issues raised by the information received by us in August 2017. The inspection did not look at all our key lines of enquiry but focused on specific aspects of the service.

We found the following:

  • L

    eadership were aware of the information triggering this inspection and had already made some changes to address some of the concerns.

  • The hospital had a Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) who met every six months. Staff told us they had clinical governance meetings between the MAC meetings, however we did not receive minutes of the clinical governance meetings.

  • There was no registered manager at this hospital at the time of our inspection.

Checks on specific services

Surgery

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

Surgery was the main activity of the hospital. Where our findings on surgery also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery section. Staff saw patients for the lens implant surgery. Patients were seen post operatively at another location.

Clinicians sought patients' consent and discussed risks with the patients at various stages of the consultation process. We also found that the hospital had a complaints procedure in place.

We observed that staff maintained patient’s privacy and dignity during consultations and post-operative checks.

However, not all staff had been trained in safeguarding .These staff were subsequently trained following our inspection. We also found that although the service saw individual patients post operatively to assess the success of lens implant surgery the service did not routinely monitor patient outcomes to give an overall measure of the effectiveness of the service. Furthermore, there was no evidence of the seven-day ‘cooling off’ period being discussed patients or being monitored in patient records.

The hospital did not have a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection.

We did not rate this service because the inspection focused on specific areas of the service and not the service as a whole.