The Chaucer Hospital

Updated 19 June 2023

The Chaucer Hospital is operated by Circle Health Group. BMI Healthcare joined Circle Health Group in January 2020. BMI The Chaucer Hospital is now The Chaucer Hospital. It is a private hospital located in Canterbury, Kent. The hospital primarily serves the communities of Canterbury, Faversham, and Dover. It also accepts patient referrals from outside these areas.

The Chaucer Hospital provides surgery, endoscopy, medical care including oncology, outpatients, and diagnostic imaging services to people over the age of 18. The hospital provides specialist care in orthopedics, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, ophthalmology, cosmetic surgery, general surgery and pain management. Care and treatment is provided to both private and NHS patients under a service level agreement. The service also provides treatment to self-funded patients or those with private medical insurance coverage.

The hospital has 55 en-suite rooms across over two wards. Facilities include two main theatres, an accredited endoscopy suite, an accredited oncology suite, outpatients with one minor procedure room and diagnostic facilities. The diagnostic imaging department has MRI, CT, ultrasound, X-ray, and digital mammography facilities. The hospital did not provide facilities for emergency medical treatment. The main service provided by this hospital was surgery.

The hospital had a registered manager in post from August 2019. A registered manager is a person with a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how a service is managed.

The hospital was previously inspected in February 2022 and it was rated as good.

Updated 19 June 2023

Our rating of this service stayed the same. 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 collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• 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. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• 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.

However:

• Not all surgical patient assessments showed completed fluid balance charts.
• Patient safety information was not always complete in MRI referral forms.
• The x-ray door was not always locked when radiation was in use.
• The MRI scanner had a significant layer of dust on it.
• Patient areas did not always display information on how to raise a complaint.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We currently do not rate effective in outpatients and diagnostic imaging services.

Updated 6 May 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. 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.

Medicine is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

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

Updated 6 May 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. 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 drink. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and had access to good information. Key services were available to suit patients' needs.
• 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.
• 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.

However:

• Patient safety information was not always complete in MRI referral forms.
• The x-ray door was not always locked when radiation was in use.
• The MRI scanner had a significant layer of dust on it.
• Patient areas did not always display information on how to raise a complaint.

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

Updated 6 May 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. 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, 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 five 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.

However:

• Not all staff were aware of the hospital's top risks.

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

Updated 6 May 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. 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 made sure that they 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 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 continually improving services.

However:

• We found that not all patients’ assessments showed completed fluid balance charts.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring and responsive, although leadership requires improvement.

Updated 6 March 2017

We regulate this service but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate it. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

BMI The Chaucer Hospital had performed two surgical Termination of pregnancy’s (ToP) within the reporting period. Due to the low numbers of procedures, we were unable to discuss experiences with patients during this inspection. However we reviewed both patient records and were able to review hospital policy and procedures around ToP.

We found that the hospital followed current guidance for ToP. In the two records we looked at we saw that this guidance had been followed and that both patients had received safe care.