Thornbury Hospital

Updated 19 November 2019

BMI Thornbury Hospital is operated by BMI Healthcare Limited and is a 64 bedded acute general hospital in Sheffield, South Yorkshire. The building was originally a private residence constructed in 1865, which later became a children’s hospital. The children’s hospital closed in the 1980's and was then acquired in 1991 by AMI.

The hospital became part of the BMI Healthcare Group in 1996. In 2002 the hospital commenced an expansion programme to ensure its facilities continued to meet patients’ needs. This included a focus to meet the increasing demand for out-patients.

As a result, a consulting suite comprising of 19 consulting rooms, a minor treatment room, out-patient reception and waiting area were added, as well as an improved physiotherapy department and gymnasium. At this time, a fourth theatre was added along with a dedicated endoscopy unit.

Source: Provider Information Return

Updated 19 November 2019

BMI Thornbury is operated by BMI Healthcare Limited and cares for adults and children undergoing a wide range of surgical procedures and those requiring other medical interventions. The hospital has a dedicated cancer unit offering both chemotherapy and supportive therapies to patients. Diagnostic imaging services include a 161 slice CT scanner and a 1.5T MRI scanner. A new digital mammography unit has been installed.

BMI Thornbury Hospital offers a level two critical care facility for those patients requiring additional monitoring and support. The hospital attracts consultants and is located close to a local NHS trust. The hospital offers a wide range of services including orthopaedics, general surgery, gynaecology, spinal surgery, urology, oncology, ophthalmology, ear nose and throat services, cosmetic surgery and physiotherapy.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced visit to the hospital on 23 and 24 July 2019, and on 02 August 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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 level.

Services we rate

Our rating of this hospital improved. We rated it as Good overall. The rating for Safe stayed the same as requires improvement. Effective improved from requires improvement to good. Caring, responsive and well-led stayed the same and were rated as good.

We rated each core service - surgery, medical care, services for children and young people, outpatients and diagnostic services - as good overall. Critical care was rated as requires improvement.

The ratings for surgery, medical care and critical care stayed the same. The ratings for services for children and young people improved from requires improvement to good. Outpatients and diagnostic services were inspected as one service at the last CQC inspection. At this inspection we rated them separately.

Although the hospital was rated a good overall, we found some issues that the service provider needs to improve.

Following this inspection, we told the provider it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We issued the provider with three requirement notices. These were related to Regulations 12 (safe care and treatment) and 17 (good governance) in the critical care unit, and Regulation 15 (premises and equipment) in relation to the hospital fire safety corrective action plan Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North East)

Updated 19 November 2019

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

The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

Updated 19 November 2019

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

The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

Updated 19 November 2019

We rated this service as requires improvement overall and in safe and well led. However, we rated it as good in effective, caring and responsive.

The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

Updated 19 November 2019

We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive and well led. We do not rate the effectiveness of diagnostic imaging departments. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

Updated 19 November 2019

We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring and responsive and well-led. We do not rate the effectiveness of outpatient departments.

The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

Updated 19 November 2019

We rated this service as good because it was effective, caring, responsive and well-led. However, we found it required improvement for being safe.

Surgery was the main activity of the hospital.