Royal Eye Infirmary

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

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant patient’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.

The service usually made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they responded to any changes in patient’s needs.

Staff checked a patient’s personal needs during pre-assessment. This enabled staff to deliver safe care.

The service carried out audits of the patient environment to make improvements to patient experience. Most actions identified in the October 2024 audit had been actioned, but handrails were identified as needing to be changed to contrast the wall and make it easier for people to locate them if needed. At the time of our assessment these had not been replaced.

The service was step-free to make it accessible for people using mobility aids. They had braille on signs to guide people to the correct area. Signage was in yellow and black to make it easier to read for people with certain eye conditions. There were facilities for toileting, infant feeding and changing.

The service had processes to identify a person’s communication needs. There was a policy to support decisions on what interpretation support was needed in each circumstance, for example, when a face-to-face interpreter was needed instead of over the telephone interpretation services.

The Royal Eye Infirmary had a hearing loop (sound system for use by people with hearing aids) at the main reception.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. There were some shortfalls in how the service responded to the care needs of patients. Calls were not always answered in a timely way, when people needed the service.

The service ran Monday to Friday between 8am to 8pm.

Patient did not always find it easy to contact the service regarding their care and treatment. Feedback collected by system partners showed some people were frustrated that calls made to the Royal Eye Infirmary were often unanswered.

Managers ensured patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements. There were up to date policies and procedures to manage non-attendances.

During our assessment we observed staff explaining clearly what to do post discharge and what to expect. They gave practical advice on risk during recovery.

The Royal Eye Infirmary had an optic dispensary located on the ground floor. Staff said this was really useful as patient could have support in real time from outpatient staff to ensure eyewear was suitable for more complex conditions.

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

The service had up-to-date policies to manage the storage and destruction of records.

In the 12 months prior to our assessment the trust told us there were 0 data breaches related to the service. Staff received training in information governance and data security.

The trust reviewed their website to make information accessible. Patients were able to contact the trust to request information in different formats like large print, audio recording or braille. The website was viewable in 32 languages. Webpages could also be viewed in different contrasts to help people with certain eye conditions read information.

During our inspection we saw staff keeping information secure.

The trust’s website had information for people who wished to request medical records or make a subject access request.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) is a legal requirement in England that ensures people with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss receive health and social care information in formats they can understand.

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

The service had policies and processes to receive and respond to feedback from people using the service.

The Royal Eye Infirmary received 35 complaints in the 12 months prior to our assessment. There were 0 complaints received relating to surgery. Senior leaders told us they took complaints seriously. Records showed complaints were reviewed and actions to make improvements were implemented.

Patients could take any unresolved complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman. At the time of our assessment the provider reported no open referrals to the parliamentary ombudsman.

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

The service monitored theatre utilisation, which is a measure of how efficiently a clinical team uses operating hours. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, the service achieved a theatre utilisation of 84% which was just behind the target of 85%.

The service monitored cancellations and had a process to manage and rebook surgeries. In the 12 months prior to our assessment the service had approximately 700 on the day cancellations. There were action plans to make improvements in lost time.

The service had up-to-date policies and procedures to manage bookings, cancellation and patients who did not attend appointments. Staff ensured patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

There were facilities for toileting, infant feeding and changing.

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

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpretation services by telephone.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments on policies used by the service. An equality impact assessment is a process to review policies to ensure vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics are not placed at a disadvantage.

There were policies to guide staff about the use of restraint (including chemical restraint) and restriction to ensure they were only used as a last resort when other management strategies had failed.

Staff received training in equality diversity and Human Rights.

Patients were usually supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Patient were supported to make decisions about their care and treatment. patient using the service told us they were given the opportunity to discuss treatment options to help them plan for the future.

The service could access a person’s wish not to be resuscitated. Staff knew how to find this information.