Kinvara Private Hospital

Updated 23 October 2023

Kinvara Private Hospital Limited is an independent hospital owned by The Karri Clinic Ltd.

It is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

• Surgical procedures.

• Diagnostic and screening procedures.

The hospital has a manager registered with CQC.

The hospital provided a range of elective day-case and in-patient surgery treatments for NHS and other funded (insured and self-pay) adults, (the service did not admit children). The hospital provided a range of specialities including gynaecology, orthopaedic surgery, cosmetic surgery and general surgery.

The hospital’s total number of operations performed was 1334.

The surgery service had 14 beds. These were arranged as ten single ensuite rooms and four double rooms with ensuite, across 2 floors. At the time of our inspection the service was due to open a new Chantry ward with six extra ensuite beds.

There were two operating theatres and two anaesthetic rooms. There was a separate recovery area.

There was a dedicated outpatient's department.

Our inspection was short-term announced. We had previously inspected this service on 20-21 September 2022.

Outpatients is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service provided by this hospital was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

Updated 23 October 2023

Our rating of this location improved. 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. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients enough to eat and drink. 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 flexibly.
• 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;

• Staff did not always receive an appraisal and complete one-to-one supervision, especially bank staff.
• The provider risk register version we saw did not include all their top risks, with agreed actions and updates from review where appropriate.

On our last inspection in September 2022, we served two section 29 warning notices against the provider and the registered manager for breaches of Regulation 17, under Section 29 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which specifically related to employment of fit and proper persons and governance.

These identified specific areas the provider must improve and set a date for compliance of March 2023.

We also informed NHS stakeholders of this action.

The provider initiated immediate steps to improve, included working with stakeholders, developing an action plan with clear timescales for improvement and a review of systems and policies.

On this inspection we found significant improvements in all areas where we had previously taken enforcement action including leadership and governance. As a result, all the breaches were removed, and we re-rated this service.

Updated 23 October 2023

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 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. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients enough to eat and drink. 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 flexibly.
• 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.

Outpatients is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was Surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the Surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, and responsive, well led. Effective and Caring were inspected but not rated.

Updated 23 October 2023

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 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. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients enough to eat and drink. 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 flexibly.
• 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;

• Staff did not always receive an appraisal and complete one-to-one supervision, especially bank staff.
• The provider risk register version we saw did not include all their top risks, with agreed actions and updates from review where appropriate.

Outpatients is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

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