Practice Plus Group Hospital, Southampton

Updated 20 January 2022

Practice Plus Hospital Group Southampton is an independent hospital in Southampton and is part of Practice Plus Group Hospitals Limited. The hospital is located within the Royal South Hants Hospital site. The hospital has one ward with 19 inpatient beds and a day case unit. Facilities include five operating theatres, pre-admission area, theatre sterile supplies unit, two endoscopy suites, one gynaecology suite, a physiotherapy gym room, diagnostic imaging and outpatient facilities.

The hospital provides surgery and outpatients services. Day case and inpatient surgery specialities included major and minor orthopaedics, ears nose and throat, and general surgery. The service provides elective day case endoscopy investigations for adult patients. The service did not have critical care facilities and did not provide services provided to persons under the age of sixteen.

We inspected the Surgery, Outpatients and Diagnostic Imaging services.

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.

The registered manager for this location has been in post since February 2020.

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.

Updated 20 January 2022

Our rating of this service went down. 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. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. 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. 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
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. 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:

• The service did not always manage medicines well.
• There was ineffective oversight of medicines licensing.
• Medicines were not always stored correctly.
• Staff were not clear on the service values or strategy in place.

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

Updated 20 January 2022

We did not previously rate Diagnostic Imaging. 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. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• 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.

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

Updated 20 January 2022

Our rating of this service went down. 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. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. 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. 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.
• Most 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:

• There were concerns with the management of the resuscitation trolley which contained items which were out of date.
• The service did not always control infection risk well. Staff were not seen to use hand sanitiser, entering or leaving the department. Chairs were not cleaned during the day.
• Staff were not always discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff did not always interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

Outpatients was part of the 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, responsive, and well led.

Updated 20 January 2022

Our rating of this service went down. 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. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. 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. 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.
• Most 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.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. 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:

• The service did not always manage medicines well.
• There was ineffective oversight of medicines licensing.
• Medicines were not always stored correctly.
• Staff were not clear on the service values or strategy in place.