We carried out a review of the data available to us about SpaMedica Brighton on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SpaMedica Brighton, you can give feedback on this service.
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, 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:
There was not the full range of intraocular (eyeball) lenses available during the operating list and this had not been communicated to the operating surgeon or discussed at the theatre briefing. There was not at least one additional identical intraocular lens in stock. This was not in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. However, since our inspection the quantity of lenses had been increased to match the increase in activity and no harm was caused to any patients.
There were two members of clinical staff who were not bare below the elbows.
The service was not submitting data to The Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN).
The service did not have an effective process to ensure relevant notifications were submitted to the CQC.