Orthopaedics and Spine Specialist Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service. Staff provided good care and treatment. 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 useful information.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Leaders of the service described how they kept up to date with the most recent evidence-based practice and required standards. Policies we reviewed referred to current good practice that was relevant to patient care and this was reflected in care plans. Leaders shared updates or changes to policies and best practice with staff. Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver care according to best practice and national guidance. Staff had access to a range of up-to-date policies and procedures, as well as training to support them in delivering evidence-based care. We reviewed 5 patient care records during our on-site assessment and found that patients had their needs met in line with current guidance and in line with the service’s policies and procedures.

Leaders had systems in place to ensure staff and the service’s policies and procedures were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. Staff could access up to date policies and procedures, which reflected current guidance. Managers and staff conducted a comprehensive programme of repeated audits to check improvement over time. They had established processes for reporting quality, including for external reviews of the service

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Leaders of the service gathered patient feedback to measure performance and quality. Between April 2023 and April 2024, the service’s patient satisfaction survey showed most patients rated their overall experience of the service as being excellent. We reviewed monthly patient satisfaction survey data, and the service routinely achieved a score above 97% for satisfaction. We reviewed information the provider submitted to the private healthcare information network (PHIN) for the patient experience between July 2018 to June 2021. Patient responses were positive in reference to the experience of being involved in decisions of care and treatment, understanding medication side effects, who to contact if worried about their condition, and feeling they were treated with respect and dignity. Staff provided peri-operative support from a multidisciplinary team, including the consultant surgeon and the nursing team. Staff supported patients to be prepared for their surgery by ensuring patients received opportunities to talk to a health professional, clear information and provision of oral and written information and clear information on how to look after themselves after discharge. Staff supported patients by giving advice if required on ‘getting fit to optimise surgery.’ Patients attended a pre-operative assessment consultation to discuss their procedure, what would happen in hospital and the recovery process.

Staff we spoke with explained that risks for patients were managed well and that patient assessment processes identified any additional risks likely to affect the patient’s procedure or care. Leaders we spoke with were focused on providing quality outcomes from patients and were aware of their responsibilities to report key data to external stakeholders. For example, they reported to the national joint registry (NJR), to measure their performance in meeting patients’ needs and achieving nationally recognised quality targets. Leaders and staff, we spoke with told us they wanted to ensure they got it right first time and used a range of risk assessments to ensure they could meet the patients’ needs, improve their lifestyles, reduce pain, and give good outcomes. The medical director told us they were passionate about making every part of the patient journey positive. The service had an up-to-date patient journey policy to promote good outcomes and encourage staff to involve the patient in their patient journey.

The service had a range of quality indicators to measure performance and quality of the service. We reviewed the service’s quality account from April 2023 to April 2024 which set out the service’s quality indicators. Quality indicators included patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), national joint registry (NJR) patient mortality, readmission to hospital within 28 days, responsiveness to patients’ personal needs, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, infection rates, accidents and near misses, friends and family test, and audits. The service shared its quality indicators with external stakeholders and commissioners. The service audited nursing documentation in patient records. From January 2024 to March 2024, 92% of patient notes were 100% compliant. The service had processes in place to repeat audits on a regular basis to ensure continuous improvements were made to people’s care and treatment.

People who used the service consistently experienced positive outcomes. We reviewed information the provider submitted to the private healthcare information network (PHIN). Between April 2020 to June 2021, all people reported their experience of the service was very good or good. Data from PHIN showed 90% of 93 people felt this hospital met their needs.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.