Alexandra Private Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed five key questions within safe. We rated responsive as good.

We found that care was person centred and that there were processes in place to ensure continuity of care. We found that the service was good at providing information to patients and detailed patient folders with all appropriate information was included in every patient room. The service listened to complaints and feedback from patients. The hospital was accessible, and patients were able to contact the service in a number of ways.

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 speak with patients in this part of the assessment.

Staff told us that they felt that care was person centred and that this had improved since CQC last assessed the service. The introduction of the new patient pathway allowed patient care wishes to be documented consistently They told us that considerations were made to accommodate a patient's specific needs where possible. Staff told us that they did not understand why patients could not have visitors and that this did not feel person centred however they understood that if a patient requested support from a friend or relative then this would be considered and risk assessed.

As all patients were in theatre or under the affects of anaesthesia during our assessment we did not observe care.

We saw evidence of a patient contacting the service due to concerns regarding possible infection. The hospital were able to contact the surgeon responsible for the patient's care and provide advice before arranging for the patient to attend an appointment for a face to face review.

Leaders told us that to ensure the continuity of care patients received a follow-up appointment seven days after the date of their surgery. This appointment was arranged in advance to ensure that patients were discharged with a plan in place.

We did not speak with partners in this part of the assessment.

The service had patient discharge packages in place which include information about who to contact should they have concerns regarding their condition. Data from patient satisfaction surveys indicated that all patients had received this information.

Patients had access to information on noticeboards in the waiting area and leaflets regarding treatments were also available. The service also has a website where further information could be accessed. Patient records that we reviewed evidenced that patients were provided with information prior to them agreeing to undergoing the surgery, including the full cost of this surgery and their right to cancel within fourteen days.

Patient satisfaction surveys indicated that patients were provided with appropriate information and that they felt that this information was clear and easy to understand.

Staff told us that they were aware that interpreters were available for patients who required this service however they were unable to tell us anything about this service. Leaders told us that patients were provided with all information at their initial consultation prior to agreeing to go ahead with the surgery, patient records that we reviewed evidenced this, including the discussions around the full cost of the surgery and their right to cancel within fourteen days.

Each patient room in the hospital had a folder with information at the bedside. This folder included information regarding the hospital and processes in place during their admission. It also contained information regarding surgical procedures so that the patient had easily accessible information.

Patient satisfaction survey data indicated that patients felt listened to and involved in their care. The complaint policy was displayed in the reception area. Two formal complaints were raised in 2024 which were resolved informally.

Leaders told us that patients were encouraged to provide feedback. They told us that when complaints or concerns were received they would aim to deal with these informally by listening to the patient and discussing what resolution the patient was hoping for. We were told of an example where a patient was unhappy with the outcome of their surgery, leaders listened to their concerns and explored what an appropriate outcome would be for the patient. Following these discussions the patient was offered revision surgery despite this not being standard practice.

The service had a complaints policy and process in place to allow patients to raise formal complaints and provide feedback to the service. Formal complaints would be investigated and feedback provided to the complainant.

The hospital was accessible with ramps in place to allow easy access to the building. As the ward is on the second floor, a lift was used by patients if they required it.

We did not speak to staff and leaders in this part of the assessment.

Patients were able to contact the service via telephone Monday to Friday between 08:00 and 18:00 with a voicemail service in place. Calls made outside of these hours are directed to a member of staff who answer any calls. They were also able to contact the service by email or arrange a call back via an enquiry form on the services website. There is no provision for contacting the service by telephone during the out of hours period and service users are advised to contact NHS111 or seek emergency care

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.