The Hampshire Clinic

Updated 6 December 2021

BMI The Hampshire Clinic is operated by BMI Healthcare Limited. BMI Healthcare became part of the Circle Health Group in December 2019.

The hospital opened in 1984. It is a private hospital in Old Basing, Basingstoke, Hampshire. The BMI Hampshire Clinic provides a range of medical, surgical and diagnostic services to patients who pay for themselves, are insured, or, for some specific surgical procedures, are funded by the NHS.

In the reporting period from September 2020 to August 2021:

• There were 4,136 surgery day cases and 1,774 inpatient episodes of care recorded at the hospital; of these 69% were privately/insured funded patients and 31% were NHS patients.
• There were 204 oncology treatments. All patients were either self-funded or insured.
• There were 1,382 endoscopy patients treated as ambulatory or day cases; of these 59% were privately/insured funded patients and 41% NHS funded.
• There were 32,639 episodes of care in the outpatient department.
• There were 1450 episodes of care in the diagnostic imaging department.

The hospital has 60 registered beds. Facilities include four operating theatres, a three-bed level three intensive care unit, and X-ray, outpatient and diagnostic facilities. There are no emergency facilities at this hospital.

The hospital provides surgery, medical care including endoscopy and oncology, and outpatients and diagnostic imaging. The hospital ceased providing services for children and young people with effect from March 2021 as BMI Healthcare centralised the service.

There were 122 surgeons, anaesthetists and physicians working at the hospital under practising privileges.

The hospital has three wards and is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

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

The hospital has a registered manager who has been in post since August 2019.

We inspected the hospital in April 2018, where the hospital was rated requires improvement overall and we issued three warning notices. After a follow up inspection in January 2019 we found the hospital had met the requirements outlined in the warning notices in full.

During this inspection we used our inspection's methodology to assess treatment and care provided at the service.

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.

Updated 6 December 2021

Our rating of this location 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 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. 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.

However:

• The critical care service did not have its own governance processes, but the used the ward’s governance arrangements. The ward manager represented both services at clinical governance meetings and daily communication cells and was responsible for escalating risks. There was lack of opportunities for critical care staff to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of their service and no formal risk management process in the department.
• A theatre storeroom was found to be visibly dirty and did not appear on the cleaning rota.
• In the theatre environment there was a broken light, held together by tape and glass protecting one set of medical gas switches was broken.
• The sluice area within recovery contained open bottles of cleaning solutions and was cluttered. A sharps bin, without a lid, was being used as a general waste bin.
• Not all staff were familiar with the location of policies, procedures and IR(ME)R procedures.
• The computerised tomography (CT) scan procedures were out of date (March 2020).

Updated 6 December 2021

Medical care services were a small proportion of the hospital's activity. We looked at endoscopy and oncology as part of this inspection when assessing medical care

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good

• 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. Managers made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, 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.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. 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 all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Updated 27 November 2018

Children and young people’s services were 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 have not rated the children and young people service, because we do not have enough evidence due to the small number of children using the service.

Updated 6 December 2021

The critical care service at BMI The Hampshire Clinic was a three bedded unit and provided level 3 and level 2 care and treatment for patients following elective surgery. This was predominantly (85%) for patients having extensive abdominal surgery and intra peritoneal chemotherapy for Pseudomyxoma peritonei, a rare peritoneal cancer. This service was part of the Peritoneal Malignancy Institute in Basingstoke. The remaining 15% of activity was for complex elective surgery. Patients were either self-funded, insurance funded or funded by the NHS through contractual agreements between the hospital and the NHS to carry out NHS work.

At the time of the inspection the critical care unit was closed for a three-week period. As a result we were not able to observe any staff to patient interactions, were not able to speak to patients or their relatives and only spoke to two members of the nursing staff (one permanent staff and one bank staff) and the lead intensivist for the unit.

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.
• 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 using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

However:

• The critical care service did not have its own governance processes but was managed under ward governance processes. There was a lack of opportunities for critical care staff to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of their service and no formal risk management process in the department. They did not proactively identify, monitor and review risks. There were limited mechanisms to engage with patients and the public and staff had limited opportunity to contribute to decision-making.

The critical care service 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 and responsive, although leadership requires improvement.

Updated 6 December 2021

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. 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.

However:

• Not all staff were familiar with the location of policies, procedures and IR(ME)R procedures.
• The computerised tomography (CT) scan procedures were out of date (March 2020).

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

Updated 6 December 2021

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. 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 6 December 2021

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 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. 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.

However:

• A theatre storeroom was found to be visibly dirty and did not appear on the cleaning rota.
• In the theatre environment there was a broken light, held together by tape and glass protecting one set of medical gas switches was broken.
• The sluice area within recovery had open bottles of cleaning solutions and was cluttered. A sharps bin, without a lid, was being used as a general waste bin.