South Bristol NHS Community Hospital

Updated 18 September 2026

Date of assessment: 13-14 May 2026.

We carried out an unannounced, comprehensive assessment at South Bristol Community Hospital on 13 and 14 May with follow up remote interviews on 28 May 2026.

The assessment looked at diagnostic imaging, surgery and outpatients which we have all rated as Good.

We rated the service overall as Good.

We carried out the assessment as the provider had not been inspected under our new methodology since 2014 where the service was rated good in all key questions across all assessment service groups.

South Bristol NHS Community Hospital overall summary:

South Bristol NHS Community Hospital is a purpose built Privately Funded Initiative (PFI), which opened in 2010 and serves the population of South Bristol and the surrounding areas. The service operates within the wider University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust. Since we commenced this assessment, the provider has changed their name to Bristol NHS Foundation Trust as part of a recent merger with North Bristol Trust.

South Bristol Community Hospital delivers integrated outpatient, day surgery and diagnostic imaging services within a community-based setting, primarily supporting elective and non-urgent care pathways.

The hospital operates a low-complexity, high-volume model with strong links to the wider trust, providing accessible diagnostics (notably X-ray and ultrasound), planned surgical procedures and outpatient care, while relying on acute sites for more complex interventions.

Diagnostic imaging summary:

Diagnostic imaging at South Bristol Community Hospital provides community-based, non-invasive imaging services primarily consisting of walk-in X-ray and GP referred ultrasound, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Services supported urgent care, outpatient and inpatient pathways. The service operates within the wider Bristol NHS Foundation Trust imaging network, with more complex imaging delivered at acute sites.

In the 12 months prior to our assessment, the service carried out 48582 examinations at South Bristol Community Hospital across all imaging modalities.

The diagnostic imaging service demonstrated a strong safety and learning culture, with effective risk management, appropriate staffing and well-maintained environments, alongside person-centred. There were also evidence-based care and good multidisciplinary working. Patients were treated with kindness and respect, with services accessible, inclusive and responsive to individual needs, supported by visible and supportive leadership fostering a culture of continuous improvement. However, there were some concerns identified within governance, including the management of out-of-date medicines and equipment, local rules and quality assurance records. These required further strengthening to ensure full oversight and assurance. However, evidence provided after the assessment showed work had already begun to rectify these issues. There was also little evidence of improvements following patient feedback and online information was out of date.

Surgery summary:

Surgical services at South Bristol Community Hospital were centred on a day case elective model, delivering minor and intermediate procedures across specialties such as general surgery, gynaecology, and ophthalmology. There was also a dedicated endoscopy service for diagnostic and selected therapeutic procedures. Surgery was embedded within an integrated pathway from outpatient assessment through to follow up, with diagnostics and specialist input available onsite or through the acute trust. Procedures were undertaken by consultant-led teams from the parent trust, with activity focused on low-risk patients suitable for same-day discharge.

Outpatients summary:

Outpatient services at South Bristol Community Hospital deliver a high volume, multi-specialty model, with approximately 40 clinics seeing around 600 patients weekly, supported by over 100 daily diagnostic investigations. Clinics cover a wide range of specialties including general surgery, orthopaedics, cardiology, gynaecology, ophthalmology, some paediatric clinics and frailty services. Care was delivered by multidisciplinary teams including consultants, specialist GPs, nurses and therapists. The service is designed to provide local access to assessment and diagnostics, with direct links to acute trust services for specialist input, enabling rapid clinical decision making. This reduces the need for travel to larger hospital sites.

Updated 6 March 2026

We carried out an unannounced, comprehensive two-day assessment on 13 and 14 May 2026.

We carried out the assessment as the provider had not been inspected under our new methodology. The service was last inspected in 2014 where the service was rated Good in all key questions across all assessment service groups.

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and most risks were mitigated. There were enough staff and most had the right skills, qualifications and experience. However, not all staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Out of date medicines were not well managed and some local rules were missing key safety information, however, work had already begun to strengthen processes around this. There was also poor compliance with paediatric resuscitation training although evidence supplied post assessment showed clear plans to address this.

Effective:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions and could recognise where they did not have capacity. However, there were some gaps in quality assurance records for some equipment.

Caring:

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. However there as little evidence of actions taken as a result of feedback and online information was out of date.

Responsive:

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Well-led:

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. However, there were some gaps in overarching governance such as in the management of out-of-date equipment and medicines, local rules, online information and quality assurance records. Evidence provided after the assessment showed work on these issues had begun.

Updated 6 March 2026

We carried out an onsite unannounced assessment visit of South Bristol Community Hospital on 13 and 14 May 2026 with a follow up remote interview on 28 May 2026.

We carried out the assessment as the provider had not been inspected under our new methodology. We assessed 33 quality statements from the safe, effective, responsive, caring and well-led key questions. During the assessment, we spoke with staff, leaders and patients. We reviewed care records, policies, and other documentation relevant to the service. The service was last inspected in 2014 and rated good in safe, caring, responsive and well-led. Effective was not rated. At this assessment the overall rating remained good.

The service provided kind and compassionate care. Staff worked well as a team and with external staff. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. Staff knew how to report incidents and learning was shared amongst teams. However, we observed some out of date items and concerns around fire safety. In regard to the fire safety this was a breach of regulation relating to safe care and treatment, as the provider had not done all that was reasonably practicable to mitigate risks and sufficient control methods had not been put in place to make the risk as low as reasonably possible.

We have requested an action plan, this will be requested upon publication of the final report.

Updated 6 March 2026

We carried out an onsite unannounced assessment visit of South Bristol Community Hospital on 13 and 14 May 2026. Surgical services provided were centred on a day-case elective model. We assessed the endoscopy suite, theatres and day surgery unit.

We assessed 33 quality statements from the safe, effective, responsive, caring and well-led key questions. During the assessment, we spoke with staff, leaders and patients. We reviewed care records, policies, and other documentation relevant to the service.

At the previous assessment we rated surgery as good. At this assessment the rating remains good.

The service provided compassionate and person-centred care. Staff reported a collaborative culture where they felt supported by their colleagues. Staff knew how to report incidents and learning was shared amongst teams. Staff had access to a range of electronic learning and were up to date with mandatory training.

In our assessment of surgical services we found improvements had been made since our last inspection, including more effective utilisation of operating theatres and improved data collection around patient outcomes.

Updated 2 December 2014

There was a good culture of incident reporting. Feedback and learning from incidents were evident within the service. Risks were identified, assessed and mitigated.

There was access to therapists and allied healthcare professionals who provided appropriate input as required. Patients told us that they felt informed about and included in decisions about their care and treatment.

Although the trust collated data on patient outcomes, this was not in sufficient depth to reflect the outcomes for patients at South Bristol Community Hospital.

Staff were caring and compassionate and interacted with patients in a respectful manner.

Patients had their individual needs met. Although there was a high bed occupancy rate within the hospital, which had an effect on the hospital’s ability to respond to the demand for inpatient beds, patients were rarely moved to another ward.

We observed good local leadership on the wards, with senior nurses demonstrating a commitment to patient safety and the management of risk. Staff reported feeling supported by managers.

Updated 2 December 2014

Although there was a low level of incident reporting within outpatient departments, staff were clear about the process and the importance of reporting incidents. Staff said that they received feedback about incidents in team meetings but there were no formal minutes to provide evidence of this. 

Infection control practices were observed within the department and staff had a focus on safeguarding both vulnerable adults and children.

We observed staff interacting in a caring and considerate manner with patients.

There were governance systems in place to monitor risks and the quality of the service. However, there was underutilisation of the outpatient facilities within the hospital; only approximately 55% of the possible number of sessions were used. There was ongoing monitoring of this to see where improvements could be made.