Orpington Endoscopy Centre

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. This meant people’s needs were met through the good organisation and delivery of care. The service generally provided person-centred care, coordinated care and treatment effectively, supported patients to access information in ways that met their needs, and used feedback to make improvements.

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 provided care that was centred around patients’ individual needs and preferences.

We observed that staff used referral pathways that considered each patient’s symptoms, age, medication use and wider health needs when planning care. Patients were provided with personalised lifestyle advice and treatment options, ensuring care was tailored to their individual circumstances.

Data provided by the service showed that patients could complete their pre-assessment through an electronic platform at a time and place convenient to them. The assessment collected information about patients’ health, lifestyle, medical history and current medication, enabling staff to understand individual needs and plan care accordingly.

Data also showed that patients who were unable to use digital services independently could access additional support through an assisted digital process. This helped ensure patients could engage with the pre-assessment process in a way that met their needs.

The service coordinated care effectively and supported continuity of care for patients.

We observed that the service had clear systems to coordinate care from referral through to discharge and follow up. Referrals were reviewed and prioritised according to urgency and suitability, and patients were offered choice of appointment dates, pre-assessment before treatment, interpreter services where required and written information about their procedure. The service managed cancelled or postponed appointments by offering alternative arrangements and ensuring patient information followed them through their pathway.

Data provided by the service showed the average referral-to-treatment (RTT) time was 16 days across all patient groups over the previous 6 months. NHS patients waited an average of 31 days, while insured and self-pay patients waited an average of 10 and 11 days respectively.

We observed that continuity of care was maintained through clear discharge and reporting arrangements. Patients received information about their procedure, follow-up plans, post-procedure advice and contact details should they need further support. Procedure reports were shared promptly with referrers and GPs, and there were clear arrangements for communicating histology results and managing patients requiring ongoing investigation or treatment.

Data provided by the service showed a low Did-Not-Attend (DNA) rate of 2.2% and a cancellation rate of 10.7% over the 3month reporting period. Cancellation records showed that reasons were mixed and included patient choice or illness, funding or insurer-authorisation issues, consultant unavailability, clinical postponement and booking changes or errors. Where appropriate, staff contacted patients and offered alternative appointments or rebooked them to support continuity of care.

Patients received information about procedures, preparation, discharge, complaints and post-treatment support to help them make informed decisions about their care.

Staff identified communication needs during booking and arranged reasonable adjustments where required. The service provided professional telephone, video and British Sign Language interpretation, hearing loops, additional support and translated patient information. Authorised interpreters were required to maintain confidentiality, and accredited interpreters were used when obtaining consent.

However, at the time of assessment, the provider’s website listed procedures that the service had not delivered for approximately 12 months, including gastric balloon insertion and removal and other therapeutic interventions. This could have affected patients’ choice of service and potentially delayed access to an appropriate provider. Following this discrepancy being raised during the assessment, leaders took immediate action and updated the website to accurately reflect the services currently provided.

The service could not provide information in Braille on request. Staff used alternative communication methods to support patients with visual impairments, and we saw no evidence that this adversely affected patient care. However, this limited the range of accessible information formats available.

The service listened to people’s views and used feedback to improve services.

Patients could provide feedback, raise concerns directly and complete feedback forms after procedures. Staff understood the complaints process and described investigating concerns, sharing learning through governance and team meetings, and monitoring complaints to resolution.

During the assessment, we reviewed complaint records held at the location, which recorded 21 complaints, 33 compliments and 10 items of patient feedback. The provider aimed to respond to complaints within 28 days. Staff told us complaints were investigated, outcomes shared and learning reviewed through governance processes, with monthly meetings used to monitor actions and escalate outstanding issues. However, in response to our request for complaints data covering the previous 12 months, the provider supplied details of only 1 complaint, which related to delays in providing a payment receipt and biopsy report. The provider did not explain why the remaining complaints data was not supplied. The discrepancy between the records reviewed during the assessment and the data subsequently supplied meant we could not identify notable themes or gain assurance that the submitted data represented all complaints received during the period.

Patient feedback informed service improvements. The service revised its branding and patient information after feedback identified confusion about organisational names. Concerns that consultants did not provide sufficient explanations led to longer appointments to support communication and patient involvement. In addition, following feedback about parking arrangements, the provider introduced plans for a parking management system to help patients register their vehicles and reduce parking-related concerns.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We observed that medical support was available when needed. Staff described clear escalation arrangements for deteriorating patients, including access to medical support, emergency equipment and ambulance services where required. Consultants and senior staff were available to provide clinical advice and support throughout the patient pathway.

We observed that discharge planning formed part of the patient pathway. Staff described liaising with referrers and other healthcare providers where ongoing care or follow-up was required to support continuity of care. As a day-case service, we did not identify evidence that patients experienced delayed discharge for non-clinical reasons during the assessment.

The service was available to NHS and privately funded patients. Over the previous 12 months, leaders told us that 45% of activity related to NHS patients and 55% to privately funded patients.

At the time of assessment, leaders reported that 78% of referrals came through consultant engagement, with the remainder arising from direct patient enquiries. The service was seeking to increase private activity through engagement with consultants based in the wider facility.

The provider did not provide the requested equality monitoring data or information about actions taken to improve access for people with protected characteristics. We could not assess whether particular groups experienced barriers to accessing the service.

The service promoted an inclusive culture and supported staff to understand equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

Compliance with mandatory equality, diversity and human rights training was 100% for relevant staff. Completion dates ranged from April 2025 to August 2026.

The service made reasonable adjustments to support equitable experiences for patients. Staff identified communication and accessibility needs during booking and pre-assessment and could arrange professional interpretation, hearing loops, translated or alternative-format information, additional time and assisted digital support. Staff also adapted communication for people with hearing, visual or communication difficulties and considered mobility and chaperone needs.

However, the provider did not provide the requested equality monitoring data and actions taken to improve access for protected characteristic. As a result, we could not assess whether policies disadvantaged particular groups or whether experiences and outcomes varied between them.

The service supported patients to make informed decisions about their treatment and future care needs, with appropriate information, follow-up and referral arrangements.

Planning for significant life changes, including end-of-life care, was not directly relevant because this standalone day-case endoscopy service did not provide inpatient, long-term or end-of-life care.

Where future care was required, patients received information about procedure findings, follow-up arrangements and when to seek further medical advice. Procedure reports were shared with referrers and General Practitioners, and patients requiring further investigation, treatment or higher-acuity care were referred to an appropriate service.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their treatment, including the option not to proceed or to withdraw consent. Patients whose needs could not be met safely within the service were identified through pre-assessment and referred to an acute hospital or other appropriate provider.