• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Wood Medispa

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Wood, South Tawton, Okehampton, EX20 2LS (01752) 753770

Provided and run by:
Wood Surgery Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 3 August 2023

Wood MediSpa is a surgeon owned private hospital near Exeter, primarily providing cosmetic surgery. The service refer to this locally as aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery. We have described the service as cosmetic surgery throughout the report. The hospital is located within a Grade 1 listed grounds and Grade 2* listed manor house. The estate had taken 12 years to redevelop and install a theatre, 6 bed in-patient ward, consultation room, hyperbaric chamber, administration offices and a dental centre. The hospital opened in 2020 and offers procedures under local and general anaesthetic. Between May 2022 and May 2023 the service had provided 2,250 private surgical procedures and 3,396 private outpatient appointments. The top 3 private surgical procedures included breast augmentation, abdominoplasty and liposuction and breast implant exchange. The service also provided hernia operations for NHS patients. There had been 161 NHS surgical procedures and 153 NHS outpatient appointments between May 2022 and May 2023. The service did not treat children.

The service had a registered manager in post and is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

  • Diagnostic and screening procedures
  • Surgical procedures
  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The service had not previously been inspected.

Overall inspection


Updated 3 August 2023

We rated this service 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. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. 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. Key services were available seven days a week.
  • 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 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.


  • Staff records were not consistently stored in one place. There were electronic copies of some records and paper copies of others. Paper copies were not stored in a central location. This meant it was not always easy for the service to have oversight of staff appraisals, competencies, disclosure and barring service (DBS) records and completed induction paperwork.
  • The service did not complete their Private Information Healthcare Network membership and comply with data submission as per the Private Healthcare Market Investigation Order 2014.
  • The service did not participate in all relevant national clinical audits, The service did not report to the private healthcare information network (PHIN).
  • The service did not report procedure specific patient reported outcome measures (Q-PROMS) as recommended by the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
  • The service did not have a formal arrangement for accessing confidential translation.
  • The service did not have a hearing loop is installed.

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