Spire Southampton Hospital

Updated 13 September 2021

Spire Southampton Hospital is operated by Spire Healthcare Limited. The hospital opened in 2007 and was registered with CQC in 2010. It is a private hospital in Southampton, Hampshire. The hospital primarily serves the communities of South Hampshire. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area and has some national contracts in place. The service also accepts international referrals for some complex surgeries. Patients were either self-funded, insurance funded or funded by the NHS through contractual agreements to carry out NHS work. The hospital has 67 inpatient beds provided across four inpatient wards, a critical care unit and day care unit. The hospital also provides an oncology suite. There are six operating theatres, an endoscopy suite and a cardiac catheter lab. The outpatient department includes 16 consulting rooms, three treatment rooms and a minor operations suite.

Diagnostic imaging includes x-ray, ultrasound, digital mammography screening, computerised tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. The critical care service at Spire Southampton was a seven bedded unit and provided care and treatment for patients following elective surgery, which was a mix of cardiac and general surgery. Children were no longer admitted to the critical care unit, and the hospital had stopped carrying out surgery that would require a child to need critical care postoperatively. The registered manager has been in post since 2019.

The hospital is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Surgical Procedures
• Treatment of Disease, Disorder or Injury
• Diagnostic and screening services
• Management of supply of blood and blood derived products
• Family Planning

The hospital had a comprehensive inspection carried out in July 2019, following this the service was given a requirement notice in Critical Care.

Updated 13 September 2021

Our rating of this location 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 to patients. 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.
• 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 the communities it served, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People accessed the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long.
• 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 26 November 2019

Medical 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.

The service provided elective endoscopy, interventional cardiology procedures and oncology services.

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

Updated 26 November 2019

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

Updated 13 September 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. The care and treatment provided by the critical service supported very effective outcomes for cardiac surgery. 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 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 the community they served, 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 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 and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Some staff were not clear about the application of the Mental Capacity Act in the critical care setting.
• Although patient records were complete, signed and dated, the name of the staff member completing the entry was not always legible.
• There were shortfalls in the environment of the unit, which had an impact on equipment storage, relatives’ facilities, and meant sharing a sluice with the recovery area.

Updated 13 September 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.
• Staff provided good care to patients. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and 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.
• 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 the communities it served, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People accessed the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for a diagnostic procedure.
• 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 to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However

• The service managed incidents, but did not always share lessons from them in a way that gave assurance staff had reviewed it.

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

Updated 26 November 2019

Outpatients 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 rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive and well led. We did not rate effective.

Updated 26 November 2019

Surgery was the main activity of the hospital. Where our findings on surgery also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery section.

Staffing was managed jointly with medical care.

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