Optegra Solent Eye Hospital

Updated 3 February 2022

Optegra Solent Eye Hospital is operated by Optegra UK Limited. Optegra UK Limited is part of a nationwide company, which has seven hospitals and two outpatient clinics in the UK. The hospital provides services to people over 18 years old.

The hospital was opened in 2010. It is located on the ground floor of a multi-business development in Whiteley, Hampshire. The hospital had five consulting rooms, a reception area, seven diagnostic rooms, three operating theatres, a treatment room and pre- and post-operative areas.

The main services provided were ophthalmic surgery and ophthalmic outpatients. The service provided services to private patients and NHS patients under contract from local NHS commissioning groups. Surgical services provided included cataract surgery, refractive eye surgery, oculoplastic surgeries, retinal diagnostic, general ophthalmic surgical services, and ophthalmic disease management.

The main service provided by this hospital was surgery. Where our findings for outpatients – for example, management arrangements – also apply to surgery, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery service report.

The service is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

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

The service has been registered with CQC since April 2011. The service has been inspected once in 2017 and rated as requires improvement overall. At the time of our 2021 inspection, the service did not have a CQC registered manager.

Track record on safety (December 2020 to November 2021):

• One never event
• One serious incident
• No incidences of hospital acquired infection

Updated 3 February 2022

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. 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 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.
• 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 staff had received training on how to protect people from abuse in line with national guidance.
• The service did not always control infection risk well. Signs and routing around the environment, for infection control purposes, were not always clear for patients and staff. Signs indicating maximum occupancy in communal spaces were not always observed.
• Staff did not always respect patient’s privacy and conversations in waiting areas could be overheard by others.
• There were fabric chairs in all waiting areas and consultation rooms, this prevented effective cleaning and we saw these were not cleaned between patients.
• The service did not take account of all patients’ individual needs and there were limited support services for patients with a learning disability or for those living with dementia.

Updated 3 February 2022

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• There were enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe.
• Some 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. They managed medicines well.
• Safety incidents were managed well and staff learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it.
• Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Key services were available in line with patient requirements. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

However:

• Not all administrative staff had not competed children safeguarding training which was not in line with national guidance.
• The service did not take account of all patients’ individual needs and there were limited support services for patients with a learning disability or for those living with dementia.
• Staff did not always respect patient’s privacy and conversations in waiting areas could be overheard by others.
• There were fabric chairs in all waiting areas and consultation rooms, this prevented effective cleaning and we saw these were not cleaned between patients.
• The service did not always control infection risk well. Signs and routing around the environment, for infection control purposes were not always clear for patients and staff

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

Updated 3 February 2022

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• Some staff had training in key skills, and managed safety well.
• All areas we visited were visibly clean. Staff regularly completed cleaning schedules and there was oversight from managers to ensure compliance.
• There were systems and processes to ensure the premises and equipment used by the service were clean, secure, maintained and suitable for the purpose for which they were being used.
• Records were accurate, secure and complete for every patient who attended the clinic for surgery.
• The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Risks to patients were assessed and monitored at pre assessment, and then checked again prior to treatment.
• 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.
• We saw that staff gained consent to treatment and this was documented fully in all the records we reviewed.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions.
• 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 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 staff had not completed children’s safeguarding training which was not in line with the national guidance.
• We found room and fridge temperatures were not always monitored.
• Not all patients were given a copy of their consent form to take home.
• Signs indicating maximum occupancy in communal spaces needed due to COVID 19 were not always observed.