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

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

This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 services at the Royal Eye Infirmary were awarded an internal trust certificate for making reasonable adjustments. The award was issued in 2024 to recognise they met the trust’s gold standard mark for making reasonable adjustments and improving the standards of care for patients with a learning disability.

The service had specialist trained staff who were available to support people during their appointments. There were staff experienced in supporting people living with Parkinson’s, learning disabilities and Autism. Staff could access further advice and support from teams at the trust’s main hospital.

The provider’s website had information about the Royal Eye Infirmary. This included easy read information for people to read before attending an appointment.

Staff received training in learning disability and autism and some staff groups completed special educational needs and disability training.

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 service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. The urgent care service maintained good links with opticians to ensure care was joined up.

Staff ensured patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

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. Records were held electronically and computer screens were locked and secure when not in use.

The trust reviewed their website to make information accessible. People 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 be viewed in different contrasts to help people with certain eye conditions read information.

The trust’s website had information for people who wished to request medical records or make a subject access request under UK GDPR, Data Protection Act 2018 and the Access to Health Records Act 1990.

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.

Staff received training in information governance and data security.

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.

The service had policies and procedures in receiving, reviewing and responding to complaints. Complaints were reviewed and there were actions identified to improve quality and safety of care.

Patients were able to make a complaint using the trust’s complaint processes. In the last 12 months there were 2 formal complaints for urgent care, both received local resolutions or a letter. Staff received feedback on the outcome of complaints.

Staff (outpatients and urgent care combined) survey results for 2024 of showed 31% believed the organisation would address any concerns raised. This was behind the trust average.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was accessible to people through referral. Performance data was limited to understand whether people received the right care promptly. Data was benchmarked against the 4 hour emergency care standard where 100% adults and 98% of children were seen within 4 hours in the last 12 months.

People could access care and support from clinicians. There was medical cover 24/7 and an on-call nurse practitioner through the day up until 8pm at night.. However, some people could not be booked the same day and would be booked later in line with clinical need.

Staff were able to make reasonable adjustments for patients. Care could be expedited if people had specific needs. For example, a patient with a learning disability would be supported through the pathway quicker if they were unsettled in the environment. In nursing triage, they could use numbers, letters, pictures and language symbols to check for vision. There was a use of a language line. Hearing loops based at reception and communication boxes in departments.

The environment was not specifically designed, with colours and bigger signage, to accommodate the visually impaired despite being a hospital specialising in eye care.

Patients were required to travel to the Derriford Hospital site to collect prescriptions, which was difficult logistically and especially with sight impairment following assessment and treatment.

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.

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

Staff received training in equality diversity and Human Rights.

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, including at the end of their life.

People were provided with clear plans for their care and referred to other departments or healthcare professionals as needed. Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment.