The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: CESP (Dorset & New Forest) @ Nuffield Health Bournemouth

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

67-71 Lansdowne Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH1 1RW (01202) 316555

Provided and run by:
Consultant Eye Surgeons Partnership (Dorset And New Forest) LLP

All Inspections

02 August 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had access to enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. These staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff working on behalf of the provider assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service had systems in place to manage safety incidents.
  • The service provided good care and treatment and managed pain well. The registered manager monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff working on their behalf were competent.
  • Staff working on behalf of the provider treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of 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 there was no waiting list.
  • The registered manager ran services well and in liaison with the host hospital, which was responsible for a large proportion of care and the operation. The service engaged with patients and the community to plan and manage services.

8 July 2013

During a routine inspection

At this inspection we were assisted by the manager, the nominated individual and another member of staff.

We were not able to speak to any people who had been treated through CESP (Consultant Eye Surgeons Partnership) but at the last inspection in February 2013 feedback surveys from 15 people were seen and at this inspection we were provided with a report on a survey carried out of a further 16 patients. All of the feedback was positive.

We saw evidence that the risks and benefits of treatment were explained to people before any treatment was carried out. We also saw forms signed by patients that showed that they had consented to any treatment provided.

The organization had a register of equipment owned by CESP. We also saw that appropriate steps were taken to make sure that equipment was serviced and regularly maintained.

Staff employed by the agency were well supported through annual appraisals and opportunities for continued learning.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to patients.

The organisation had a well-publicised complaints procedure and we found that complaints were investigated and resolved.

Required records were in place, readily available and stored appropriately.

28 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We examined the feedback surveys from 15 people who had recently used the service. They were all pleased with the care and treatment they had received. One person commented that they had received clear information that had enabled them to make treatment decisions. The provider did not have access to records that would demonstrate that all people using the service had consented to the care and treatment they received.

We spoke with two members of staff. They were unable to tell us which pieces of equipment used by CESP they owned. There was no register of equipment. We were told that equipment was maintained but only three service records could be provided at the inspection.

We asked staff to tell us about the complaints procedure. They told us that there was a complaints policy. However there was no written information available to people using the service to tell them about the complaints procedure and how they could make a complaint. We were told that no complaints had been received since registration. Staff could not tell us how the provider was assured that anyone making a complaint would be identified as someone receiving care and treatment from CESP and the complaint appropriately responded to.

We examined medical, personnel and equipment records during the inspection and found that they were incomplete and not fit for purpose. We were told that no audits take place. We observed that records are kept securely in locked filing cabinets in locked rooms.