Background to this inspection
Updated
12 February 2016
Bristol Plastic Surgery is a small independent acute clinic offering minor plastic surgery services to both private and NHS Patients. There are no inpatient beds at the clinic.
It has one operating theatre. Children and young people attend for outpatient consultations. No surgical treatments are carried out on children or young people at Bristol Plastic Surgery.
In the year to March 2015, there were 1,765 visits to theatre.
The clinic has a registered manager who had been registered with the Commission for one year and five months at the time of our inspection.
We inspected the clinic as part of our schedule of independent hospitals.
Updated
12 February 2016
Bristol Plastic Surgery is a small independent acute hospital offering minor plastic surgery services to both private and NHS Patients. There are no inpatient beds at the hospital.
We inspected the hospital on 18 August 2015 as part of our schedule of comprehensive inspections of independent hospitals.
We have not published a rating for this service. CQC does not currently have a legal duty to award ratings for those hospitals that provide solely or mainly cosmetic surgery services.
Are services safe at this hospital?
There was open and transparent reporting of incidents of harm or risk of harm, which were reviewed at regular meetings. When things went wrong patients were informed in a timely manner. However, learning from incidents was not widely shared with staff and there were no records of this happening.
Patient records were inconsistent and often incomplete. Some assessments were not completed and we found loose documents in sets of notes that could easily be lost. However, the clinic had enough staff to meet patients’ needs, and staff were up to date with safeguarding training and were aware of the reporting process if abuse was suspected.
Are services effective at this clinic?
Care provided within the clinic was evidence based. Staff were able to attend external study days and training such as wound care, and able to use this knowledge in practical terms. All policies, incidents and complaints were discussed at the medical advisory committees and a record of all action points was made.
We found patient’s outcomes were not being monitored and there was no benchmarking against other similar services. The clinic did not participate in any national audits.
We found the staff were experienced and competent in delivering the service, appraisals were up to date and learning was completed as required.
Are services caring at this clinic?
We found the service provided to patients to be caring. This was reflected in the feedback by patients. Staff were found to be supportive, kind and considerate.
Are services responsive at this clinic?
The service did not have a waiting list and patients could choose when to have their operations. The clinic was able to meet the needs of patients with mobility issues by the use of a stair lift and access to consulting rooms at ground level. Open evenings were held to give potential patients information and advice about the services the clinic provided.
All complaints were taken seriously and acted upon if required. A complaints report was provided at the medical advisory meetings and was discussed as an agenda item.
There was some service planning in place but we did not see documented evidence of this.
Are services well led at this clinic?
The clinic had leaders who were held in high regard by staff, the culture was open and honest and staff felt able to discuss any concerns. However, the clinic lacked documented evidence of their vision, values and strategy.
Risk assessments had been completed, but there was not a risk register in place. There did not appear to be ownership of the risks and these had not been updated after two instances of needle-stick injury, for example.
However, there were areas of poor practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
Importantly, the provider must:
-
Undertake regular audits of the service provided, monitor patients outcomes and ensure that there is documented evidence of action learning processes in place to support the outcomes.
-
Ensure that identified risks to people who use the services and others are continually monitored and appropriate action is taken when a risk has increased.
-
Improve documentation and record keeping to ensure an accurate and complete patient record is maintained.
-
Have an effective recruitment and selection procedures, which should assess the accuracy of the applications and be designed to demonstrate the candidates suitability for the role, while meeting the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.
In addition the provider should:
Professor Sir Mike Richards
Chief Inspector of Hospitals
Updated
12 February 2016
Patient outcomes were not being measured and there were very few audits being completed. The service was not measuring itself against other similar services enabling benchmarking to take place.
We found the record keeping was inconsistent and there were incomplete documents and risk assessments within patients’ files, the documents were not always securely fastened in the notes.
There were no documented interview notes of staff newly appointed. However, we did see evidence of all other recruitment checks as having taken place.
Bristol Plastic Surgery did not have any documented visions or values. The directors and general manager had a strategy they were able to communicate. However, no documentation could be presented to show how this was going to be developed, or when it was going to be developed by.
We did find the service as being open and transparent; the staff felt valued and were proud to be working for the service. The staff were experienced and competent in the roles they performed.
The service received positive feedback, which was reflected in the comments from a patient we spoke with. The service was planned to allow flexibility and choice for patients accessing care and treatment. All complaints were taken seriously and acted upon if required.