King Edward VII's Hospital

Updated 5 September 2022

King Edward VII’s Hospital is operated by King Edward VII’s Hospital Sister Agnes. The hospital is based in London. The hospital provides surgical services, medical care, critical care, outpatient services and diagnostic imaging services. There are 40 private in-patient rooms over three wards, four critical care beds, three operating theatres, one day surgery unit, 27 consulting rooms, two minor procedure rooms, two Phlebotomy rooms, ophthalmology diagnostic suite, digital X-ray, fluoroscopy (Screening), ultrasound, DEXA (Bone Density Scanning), two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, two computed tomography (CT) scanners, digital mammography, physiotherapy and hydrotherapy.

The regulated activities registered for this location are:

Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

Diagnostic and screening procedures

Surgical procedures

Family Planning

There was a registered manager in place at this location since it registered with the CQC.

The hospital identified surgery as the main core service with supporting outpatient and diagnostic imaging services. The hospital’s largest amount of activity was in the outpatients core service, so for the purposes of our reporting we considered outpatients the main core service. Where our findings on outpatients – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the outpatients section.

Updated 5 September 2022

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 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:

Staff had a variable understanding of following safe procedures for children accompanying a patient who is attending the outpatient department.

The service did not have relevant information promoting healthy lifestyles and support inpatient areas. There were no information leaflets or material available within the clinics, nor there was any information within the outpatient department displayed directing patients where to access information related to a healthy lifestyle.

Updated 9 April 2019

Medical care 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 9 April 2019

Critical care 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 hospital has a four-bed level three critical care unit.

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

Updated 5 September 2022

Our rating of this location stayed the same. 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.

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 5 September 2022

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. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

Staff provided good care and treatment 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, 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 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:

Staff had a variable understanding of following safe procedures for children accompanying a patient who is attending the outpatient department.

The service did not have relevant information promoting healthy lifestyles and support inpatient areas, i.e. there were no information leaflets or material available within the clinics, nor there was any information within the department displayed directing patients where to access information related to a healthy lifestyle.

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

Updated 5 September 2022

Our rating of this location stayed the same. 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.

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 was outstanding.