Spire Parkway Hospital

Updated 10 December 2019

Spire Parkway Hospital is operated by Spire Healthcare Limited. The hospital/service opened in 1982. It is a private hospital in Solihull, West Midlands. The hospital primarily serves the communities of the Solihull, Birmingham, Warwickshire and surrounding areas. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area.

The hospital has had a registered manager who was approved in post in March 2019.

The hospital has been inspected previously, the last inspection was in November 2018 when we only inspected surgery service. We carried out a full comprehensive inspection in December 2015 and March 2014.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short announced inspection on 17,18 and 26 September 2019.

Updated 10 December 2019

Spire Parkway Hospital opened in 1982 and is operated by Spire Healthcare. The hospital was previously run by an independent hospital group until Spire Healthcare acquired the hospital group in 2007.Spire Parkway Hospital provides medical and surgical care to the residents of Solihull, Birmingham, Warwickshire and further afield, with over 600 GP surgeries referring patients to the hospital in a range of specialities including: orthopaedics, general surgery, ear, nose and throat (ENT), plastics, ophthalmology, urology, gynaecology and cosmetics.

The hospital has 43 beds and facilities include five operating theatres, one specifically for endoscopy cases, an extended recovery unit, two in-patient wards, a day care unit, a specialist cancer centre, and an endoscopy suite. We inspected all services provided including surgery, endoscopy, oncology services, services for children and young people, outpatients and diagnostic imaging facilities.

Services were provided to patients who were self-funding, those covered by private medical insurance and to NHS patients who had been referred by their GP or who had booked via the NHS “choose and book” service. Chemotherapy and children and young people services was not provided to NHS patients.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 17 and 18 September 2019, along with an announced visit to the hospital on 26 September 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate. Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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 report.

Services we rate

Our rating of this hospital improved. We rated it as Good overall.

We found good practice within the services:

• The hospital 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 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 hospital 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 hospital engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

We found areas of outstanding practice

• The hospital had a multi faith resource box. This included a prayer mat, various religious texts and scriptures. There was a specific room that could be used as a ‘quiet room’ for patients and relatives to use when needed.
• Radiology staff had completed home visits for patients with additional needs alongside the Occupational Therapist to describe the process to the patients and their families so they were fully informed, prepared and aware of the procedure to be undertaken.
• A broad range of age appropriate information had been developed for CYP and their families. This included a range of activities, the use of pictorial cards to enhance understanding, information about bullying, safeguarding and supporting CYP with learning disabilities.
• Pharmacy staff had developed personalised leaflets for patients regarding their medicines following joint surgery and for oncology patients.
• Pharmacy staff had robust systems in place to safely manage and comply with medicines in the oncology service which was in line with national best practice.
• A broad range of age appropriate information had been developed for CYP and their families. This included a range of activities, the use of pictorial cards to enhance understanding, information about bullying, safeguarding and supporting CYP with learning disabilities.
• There was a proactive approach to understanding the needs and preferences of different groups of people and to delivering care in a way that meets those needs, which was accessible and promoted equality.
• The hospital had a comprehensive audit and risk management structure which ensured the service had a transparent approach to the management of risk and the assurance of safety.
• The hospital had gained and held national accreditations such as: ISO accreditation for pathology (ISO certification is a seal of approval from an external body whereby a company complies to one of the internationally recognised ISO management systems), British United Provident Association (BUPA) accreditation for breast care, bowel care, prostate care, and the cancer survivorship programme. The specialist care centre (oncology unit) had been awarded a Macmillan Mark of Quality Environment (MQEM) for achievements in quality for cancer care environment.
• The oncology service was awarded an Exemplar award by the provider’s group clinical director and had been recognised for excellent care and service for cancer patients in 2018.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• The service was not carrying out face to face pre-operative assessment appointments for all children and young people, this was not on the hospital risk register.
• Not all records in oncology had a recording of the time they were signed.
• There had been instability in the chemotherapy leadership team during 2019 and an interim manager was in post at the time of our inspection. The culture within the oncology service was variable due to leadership changes and some staff felt unsettled and unsupported.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Updated 10 December 2019

As surgery was the main inpatient service within the hospital, where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery service section.

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

Updated 10 December 2019

As surgery was the main inpatient service within the hospital, where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery service section.

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

Updated 10 December 2019

As surgery was the main inpatient service within the hospital, where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery service section.

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

Updated 10 December 2019

As surgery was the main inpatient service within the hospital, where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery service section.

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

Updated 10 December 2019

Surgery was the main activity of the hospital. Where our findings on surgery also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery section.

Staffing was managed jointly with medical care.

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