Nuffield Health Bournemouth Hospital

Updated 21 June 2022

The service was last inspected in November 2016 to follow up a warning notice in surgery and the last comprehensive inspection was in May 2016 when the service was rated requires improvement overall.

The main service provided by this hospital was surgery. Where our findings on surgery for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery service.

The hospital has a registered manager, Mr David McNair, and the service is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

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

Updated 21 June 2022

Nuffield Health Bournemouth Hospital is a large independent acute hospital part of the Nuffield Health group. The service provides care for patients in the South West of England.

The hospital provides surgical, medical, outpatients and diagnostic services, and services for children and young people.

At our unannounced inspection in April 2022, we inspected and rated the following services:

• Surgery – the rating improved from requires improvement to good
• Medical care – the rating remained good

Our overall rating for Nuffield Health Bournemouth improved from requires improvement to good. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had updated their 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 to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, 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.

Updated 21 June 2022

Updated 1 December 2016

Overall we rated outpatients and diagnostic imaging as ‘good’. We rated safe, caring, responsive and well led care as good. We did not rate the effectiveness of care and treatment.

There were appropriate systems in place to keep patients, including children and young people, safe. Staff reported incidents and shared learning of these incidents. Outpatient areas were clean and equipment was well maintained. Staffing levels were appropriate without any use of agency staff. Patient records were available for appointments and the department had timely access to test results. However, nurses who were responsible for decontamination of nasendoscopes were not trained to undertake the decontamination of that equipment. They had received training in general decontamination of equipment.

There was good multidisciplinary team working. Staff told us there was good training and support in their role, with appropriate opportunities to develop their skills further.

Staff were caring, compassionate, and treated patients with dignity and respect. Patients told us they felt informed about their treatment and had been involved in decisions about their care.

Hospital staff, together with consultant private secretaries, managed and scheduled clinics appropriately. This ensured good availability of appointments for patients across all specialities.

Staff worked effectively in teams and were generally positive about the leadership of the service at both a local and senior level. There was an open culture and staff were encouraged to make suggestions to improve services for patients. The hospital used different methods to gather feedback from patients about their experience.

Updated 21 June 2022

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it 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 to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, 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.

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