Spencer Private Hospitals Canterbury

Updated 21 November 2022

Spencer Private Hospital (Canterbury) is an independent hospital which is one of three sites operated by Spencer Private Hospitals Limited (SPH) in the Kent area. SPH is a wholly owned subsidiary of the local NHS trust which generates extra income for the trust through payment of services, as well as investing profits back into the trust hospitals.

The hospital opened in November 2019 and is located within the site of the local NHS trust hospital in Canterbury. Initially, the hospital offered outpatient appointments only, but in 2022 they opened an eight-bedded ward and offered day and inpatient surgical procedures.

In the reporting period September 2021 – August 2022:

• There were 1,483 outpatient appointments.

In the reporting period March 2021 – September 2022:

• There were 372 surgery day cases and 23 inpatient episodes of care recorded at the hospital.

The hospital has a service level agreement with the local NHS trust for agreed services including the use of facilities and equipment procurement.

Care and treatment is provided to adults only who are self-funded, through private medical insurance and NHS funded.

The hospital is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury
• Surgical procedures
• Diagnostics and screening procedures.

The hospital has a registered manager who has been in post since November 2019. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage a service. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how a service is managed.

This was Spencer Private Hospital (Canterbury) first inspection.

Where our findings for example, on management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery service.

Updated 21 November 2022

The location had not previously been inspected. 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. The service managed safety incidents reasonably well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected some safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients enough to eat and drink. Managers had started to monitor 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 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 and had started to use 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 policies and procedures were reviewed and updated in the required timeframe to make sure up to date practices were followed.
• When the hospital used facilities and equipment from the local NHS trust there were no checks in place to make sure they were clean, suitable for the intended purpose and maintained.
• Minutes of meetings did not always make it clear that information and data from the Spencer Private Hospital (Canterbury) was included in governance meetings.

Updated 21 November 2022

This location had not previously been rated. 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.

However:

• Not all policies and procedures were reviewed and updated in the required timeframe to make sure up to date practices were followed.
• Not all the consumables were in date.

Updated 21 November 2022

This location had not previously rated. 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 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 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 policies and procedures were reviewed and updated in the required timeframe to make sure up to date practices were followed.
• When the hospital used facilities and equipment from the local NHS trust there were no checks in place to make sure they were clean, suitable for the intended purpose and maintained.
• Minutes of meetings did not always make it clear that information and data from the Spencer Private Hospital (Canterbury) was included in governance meetings.

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