Archived: Parkside Hospital at Putney

Updated 3 March 2020

Parkside Hospital at Putney is a private hospital opened in February 2012 to provide additional clinical space for outpatient services at Parkside Hospital. The services offered at the hospital are general surgery and gender re-assignment pre-operative assessments. No surgical procedures take place at this location.

The gender identity service at Parkside Hospital provided genital reconstructive surgery which currently deals with transwomen only. The gender identity service also provided vaginoplasty, labiaplasty and orchidectomy services. Prior to surgery, patients undergo hormone replacement therapy and counselling from recognised gender specialists from their referring hospitals.

The pre-assessment nursing team works across both Parkside Hospital and Parkside Hospital at Putney and consists of one nurse practitioner, one sister, three staff nurses and one care assistant. The gender reassignment team had one specialist nurse.

Two medical consultants work at the clinic; they offer consultations and review for pre and post gender re-assignment surgery.

The registered manager of the hospital is also the hospital director of Parkside Hospital in Wimbledon and has been registered since 2017.

The service is registered with the CQC to undertake the regulated activities of treatment of diseases, disorder and injury, surgical procedures and diagnostic and screening procedures.

Updated 3 March 2020

Parkside Hospital at Putney is a private hospital operated by Aspen Healthcare Limited. The service provides pre-assessment and post-operative care for general surgical and gender re-assignment patients. Most of the gender re-assignment patients were referred to the hospital under NHS funded arrangements.

The patients using the service were a mixture of privately and NHS funded patients. Between March 2018 and February 2019, 40 private patients attended for a first appointment compared to 155 NHS funded patients. There was 476 NHS and 611 non-NHS follow up appointments.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced inspection of the hospital on 19 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.

Services we rate

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as Good overall.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care. Managers appraised staff’s work performance annually and checked to make sure staff had the right qualifications and professional registration for their roles.

• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.

• The environment was appropriate and met the needs of the range of people who accessed the service including refreshments for parents’ appointments. The service controlled infection risks effectively.

• Patients could access services and appointments in a way and a time that suited them. The service used technology innovatively to ensure patients had timely access to all the diagnostic tests before their scheduled appointment.

• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and could evidence its effectiveness. Managers monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to improve them. The service evaluated care provided to ensure they were of good quality through regular clinical audits.

• The service treated concerns and complaints seriously. The registered manager completed comprehensive complaints investigations and shared lessons learnt with all staff.

• The service improved its quality and safeguarded high standards of care by creating an environment for good clinical care.

• Staff were caring, compassionate, kind and engaged well with patients and their families.

• Managers promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff. Staff reported their team worked well together and staff trusted and respected each other.

• The service collected, analysed, managed and used information to support all its activities, using secure electronic systems with security safeguards.

• The service effectively managed risks and could cope with both the expected and the unexpected.

  Nigel Acheson

  Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (South & London)

Updated 3 March 2020

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

• There was a good incident reporting, investigation and feedback system and staff recognised how to respond to patient risk with arrangements to identify and care for deteriorating patients.

• Appropriate infection control procedures were in place and the environment was clean and utilised well.

• Policies and procedures were developed using relevant national best practice guidance and patients had access to appropriate nutrition and hydration including specialist advice and support.

• Patient access and flow was seamless and without delay and staff were aware of their responsibility to ensure patients’ individual needs were met.

• Leaders and teams used systems to monitor and manage performance effectively.

• Clinical audit processes functioned well and had a positive impact on quality governance, with clear evidence of action to resolve concerns.

• There was an effective and comprehensive process to identify, understand, monitor and address current and future risks.

Updated 18 August 2016

We rated this service as good because:

• Patients were protected from avoidable harm and abuse.
• There was a good incident reporting culture throughout the hospital.
• Patient care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance including up to date guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
• The outcomes of care and treatment were monitored and actions taken to make improvements.
• Patients received supportive care and treatment in an environment that maintained their privacy and dignity.
• Interactions between staff and patients were positive.
• The reconfiguration of services meant that the needs of patients requiring pre-assessment or appointments within the gender reassignment clinic were better met.
• The length of pre-assessment appointment times was directed in line with NICE guidelines and also taking into account individual needs of the patient, such as those with dementia or a learning disability.
• The leadership, governance and culture promoted the delivery of high quality, person-centred care.
• There was a clear vision and strategy and staff understood their role within its delivery.