Sarum Road Hospital

Updated 6 April 2022

Sarum Road Hospital is operated by Circle Health Group. BMI Healthcare became part of the Circle Health Group in December 2019.

Sarum Road Hospital is a private hospital in Winchester, Hampshire and 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.

The hospital has 48 registered beds. Facilities include two operating theatres, a two-bed close observation unit, and X-ray, outpatient and diagnostic facilities. There are no emergency facilities at this hospital.

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

Surgeons, anaesthetists and physicians worked at the hospital under practising privileges.

The hospital has two 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 March 2020.

We inspected the hospital in February 2016 where we rated the hospital good overall. We inspected the medical care service in August 2018 to follow up some specific concerns and rated the service good overall.

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 April 2022

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The hospital generally 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 hospital controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service generally 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 hospital 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 hospital 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. Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were generally clear about their roles and accountabilities. The hospital engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Emergency equipment checks did not always adhere to hospital policy and there were gaps in some equipment cleaning schedules.
• Security to the theatre environment needed to be improved.
• Staff were not always able to identify who had responsibility for tasks in the manager’s absence.
• Patient risk assessments were not always completed and follow up actions were not always recorded. Also, staff did not always document details of incidents and share learning on their incident forms.
• Staff in the outpatient and diagnostic imaging services felt under pressure due to staffing levels and felt the communication around this was lacking.
• The diagnostic imaging service did not check mobility requirements for NHS patients at booking stage for the mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine.

Updated 6 April 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 generally controlled infection risk well. Staff generally assessed risks to patients well but did not always act on them. The service generally 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 generally clear about their roles and accountabilities but when leaders were absent, there was a lack of clarity about 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:

• Three sharps bins were overfilled and included items that were not sharps.
• Staff were not able to identify who had responsibility for some tasks in the manager’s absence.
• There was no evidence reflecting when an observation trolley and scalp cooler had last been cleaned.
• All parts of risk assessments were not always completed and follow up actions were not always recorded.

Medical care 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.

Updated 13 July 2016

Overall, we found services for children and young people were good. We did not rate this service for caring as there was insufficient evidence to do so. The children and young people’s service had a good track record on safety with no serious indents reported. The hospital safeguarded children and young people through offering care tailored to their needs. There are two fully qualified paediatric nurses employed by the hospital to manage the care of children and young people. A resident medical officer (RMO) with a current certification in paediatric advanced life support is employed whenever a child is admitted.

The hospital lacked specific waiting areas and consulting rooms for children, but staff minimised the potential impact of mixing children with adults by using dividing screens if needed.

The director of clinical services and the paediatric nurses were all qualified in safeguarding to level 3 and the director of clinical services took the role of safeguarding lead at the hospital. Children and young people’s services are planned and delivered in line with best practice and guidance. The provider monitors outcomes and the service benefitted from the same standards of care and infection prevention and control measures activities afforded to adults in the hospital.

Children’s and young people’s services were responsive and provided access at times to suit children, young people and their parents. Child-friendly information was available for children about their procedures; nurses encouraged them to ask questions about their care. Nursing staff offered children and parents emotional support when needed. The paediatric nurses gave a feedback questionnaire to all children and young people and the results were collated annually and used to improve the service for children and young people.

Staff felt well supported by the paediatric nurse leads as well as the director of clinical services and the senior leadership team. There were no serious incidents related to the care of children or young people within the past year and there was a positive culture of reporting, investigating and learning from incidents across the hospital. There were no known risks associated with the care of children and young people at the time of our inspection.

The executive director told us the risk register was not fit for purpose in its current format but senior managers were aware of this and were in the process of reviewing their processes for recording, reviewing and tracking mitigating actions across the hospital. There was no written strategy for the care of children and young people at this hospital though staff shared the overall vision of providing excellent care and value for money.

Updated 6 April 2022

We previously inspected and rated diagnostic imaging alongside outpatients. We rated it as good because:

• 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. 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 generally 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:

• Staff in the outpatient and diagnostic imaging services felt under pressure due to staffing levels.
• The service did not ensure all consumables were in date.
• The service did not always document details of incidents and shared learning on their incident forms.
• The service did not check mobility requirements for NHS patients at booking stage for the mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine.

Diagnostic imaging was part of the 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 April 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• 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:

• Staff in the outpatient and diagnostic imaging services felt under pressure due to staffing levels.

Outpatients was part of the 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 April 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. Staff 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:

• Checks of emergency equipment did not always adhere to hospital policy.
• Security to the theatre environment needed to be improved.