South Bristol NHS Community Hospital

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

We looked for evidence people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care to meet these needs. We also looked for evidence people could access care in ways to meet their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remains good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service based patient care around individual needs and preferences. Patients requiring surgery were screened for any psychological issues as part of the pre-operative assessment process. If patients were identified as needing additional help with their mental health needs then the waiting list booking team and admissions team were informed. This was to ensure they could make any appropriate arrangements for when the patient attended for surgery.

Plans were made for patients with dementia. Dementia link nurses and care navigators liaised with dementia patients and their families or carers to consider what was in their best interest.

We observed staff communicating with patients, so they understood their care and treatment, including finding effective ways to communicate with patients with communication difficulties. We saw staff had access to a full range of interpretation services and were able to support people with visual or hearing impairments.

Data provided show examples of completed daily audits, including the checking of patient call bells and emergency bells.

All the patients we spoke with during our assessment said staff responded when they asked for help and one described staff as being “very attentive”.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The operational policy for day surgery and endoscopy services set out the core functions and procedures of the service. The trust demonstrated an understanding of local population needs by improving access to services, particularly for older patients and wheelchair users, through reduced travel and convenient parking. There was a clear focus on delivering services closer to local communities, including cataract surgery and endoscopy.

There was an improvement in theatre utilisation since our previous assessment in 2014 when theatres were being used only 25% of the available time. Data provided at this assessment showed theatres were being used for an average of 68% of the available time for the first 4 months of 2026. The improvement had been supported by the reintroduction of ophthalmology lists at the site. However, some staff thought theatres could still be better utilised. There was a management and optimisation of theatre list statement of purpose (SOP), showing a target of 80% utilisation.

There was ongoing work on timings and a focus on trying to improve patient activity. Leaders identified operational flow constraints affecting how lists ran, for example, a lack of staffing establishment to support a continuous day without a lunchtime break. Out-of-hours work was being discussed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records which were stored electronically. Staff received information governance training and had a responsibility to maintain and safeguard confidential information. Staff ensured patient files and documents were not left on display for others to see. Following discharge, patient information was documented on the electronic hospital system.

The trust had an accessible information standard (AIS) policy (due for renewal in May 2026) in line with AIS standards. The policy outlined key ways in which the trust and its staff met the needs of service users who had accessible information or communication needs as a result of a disability, impairment or sensory loss.

Detailed information was provided to patients about what to expect before and after procedures. The service provided information leaflets, for example regarding day case hernia repairs and the colorectal nursing team. Staff had access to patient information leaflets in various languages on an electronic application (app). The discharge information leaflet (following day surgery under a general anaesthetic) included contact details for further help and advice.

The trust offered written translation services and face to face interpreting which could be pre-booked or when possible at short notice. Telephone and video interpreting was accessible at short notice if required urgently. There were also non-spoken language translation and interpreting services, including a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters, lip-speakers and video interpreters. These services were available 24 hours a day on 365 days a year. To support staff, there was a dedicated intranet page with details of how to access each of the translation and interpreting services and a translating and interpreting policy with guidance of how and when to use interpreting services appropriately. The trust monitored performance through contract management processes to ensure quality and compliance with relevant standards.

Feedback was gathered through patient surveys and data was provided for the year prior to our visit. When patients were asked if they were given information about managing any complications following procedures, 95.8% said “Yes” (2.1% could not remember).

Anonymous questionnaires were given out to patients in the recovery areas to complete prior to discharge. The results were collated externally, and feedback was provided in monthly reports. These results were displayed in the patient waiting area.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients could raise concerns in a range of accessible ways on the service’s website, by telephone, email, in writing, completing a form or visiting the trust’s patient advice and liaison service (PALS) office. A QR code on patient discharge paperwork provided patients with an endoscopy service specific questionnaire. This was reviewed monthly. Paper printed questionnaires were also available for those who required them. The results of these questionnaires were audited annually and any relevant actions taken.

There was evidence changes had been made as a result of feedback. A concern related to the clarity of a member of staff introducing themselves and describing their role was raised. In response, if a member of staff had two roles this would be explained to ensure patients understood who was qualified to provide their care.

There was a trust complaints policy which was overdue for review (October 2025) describing its statutory obligations for the timely and effective handling and investigation of complaints made by patients and those who cared for them. The trust commitment was to make its complaints service open and accessible, and to use complaints as a key source of trust-wide learning. The service had received 0 complaints during the 12 months prior to our visit. Leaders told us some concerns had been raised regarding, for example, parking and these were responded to at the time. Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment.

Leaders described person-focused approaches when teams spoke to patients to understand “what matters to them” and themes were reviewed to improve patient experience. This was celebrated at an annual “what matters to you” event.

If NHS patients were dissatisfied with responses to complaints, they could contact the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

All the patients we spoke with who attended for procedures at the time of our assessment told us staff involved them in their care decisions.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.

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

The area had poor public transport which could make access to central hospital services difficult. This was framed as part of the rationale for developing and shifting services closer to the community, potentially including an increase in future services at the South Bristol site.

There were trust-wide standard operating procedure (SOP) for the management of elective admissions, and managing patient and hospital cancellations. Data provided for the 3 months prior to our visits showed there were few cancellations. Most cancellations were due to patients not being fit for surgery on the day and were rebooked within the month (or within 2 months, some due to patient choice). However, 2 surgeries were cancelled because of equipment failure. It was identified in the executive theatre teams meeting there was a risk due to the lack of air drills consoles which could result in delays and cancellations of maxillofacial and oral surgery.

Themes for patients who did not attend their appointments were reviewed and changes were made to improve equity in access for people. For example, some patients were not receiving appointment letters on time. The service responded by issuing digital letters.

Discharge was in accordance with the agreed criteria after assessment of fitness for discharge. If patients failed to meet the discharge criteria they were reviewed and possibly admitted to a suitable clinical area. Patients were discharged home approximately 1 to 6 hours after appointment times, depending on the procedures undertaken. There were procedure specific recovery guidelines available in the recovery areas which provided information for safe recovery and discharge of patients. Staff ensured patients and their escorts fully understood any constraints following sedation. If patients lived alone, arrangements were made to ensure patients were not alone for 12 hours after a procedure.

Written and verbal information was given at time of discharge relating to results, follow up and any potential side effects and complications from procedures. Clear written instructions were given to patients including what to do and who to contact in the event of any problems. It was stated patients who had been sedated should not, for example, drive a car or operate machinery.

To support discharge, there were information leaflets available covering common procedural findings. On patients’ discharge information there were instructions for who to contact if they had any questions or experienced any problems, with contact numbers provided, including the unit.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example patients who had mobility problems. All areas were accessible by wheelchair and patients told us they found the service accessible.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the unit, and the trust, promoted a culture in which the people felt empowered to give their views.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and human rights. This training was underpinned by the service’s equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policy which outlined the trust’s commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion for all nine protected characteristics, as defined in the Equality Act 2010.

The pre-operative assessment process identified patients who might require extra support. Staff said they could ensure people’s needs were met and planned in advance. People who used the service had their needs and preferences assessed and were supported by the care navigators when required. They were treated with equality and in a non-discriminatory way.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

The trust followed national guidance for discharge and was reviewing the adoption of a “Leaving Hospital”, discharge strategy for use across the group in the future.

The trust had clinical guidelines regarding the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) forms and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions. NHS ReSPECT forms record patients’ personal preferences for medical care and resuscitation decisions in case of an emergency and patients cannot communicate their wishes. There was also an electronically shared care plan, based on the national ReSPECT form, to allow real time information sharing between the acute hospital and community settings throughout the region.

Detailed information was provided to patients about what to expect before and after surgery with contact numbers for support after patients had returned home. Staff provided patients with information regarding any ongoing care or treatment needs at time of discharge. Patients’ wishes were recorded in patients’ records and staff knew how to identify these.