58 Queen Square

Updated 22 May 2023

58 Queen Square Limited is a small independent acute hospital offering minor plastic surgery services to both private and NHS patients on direct referral via the hospital trusts. There are no inpatient beds at the hospital.

They are located in a Georgian, Grade 2, five storey listed building in the heart of Bristol. The premises has been redesigned into a private clinic with a fully functioning operating theatre located in the basement.

The service has one operating theatre and four fully equipped consulting rooms. There is one waiting room and three rooms to accommodate administrative personnel. There are also four bathrooms, one staff kitchen and one staff changing room.

The main services provided by this hospital was Skin Cancer, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

Updated 22 May 2023

This was the first time we rated this service. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff managed safety well. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. 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.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. They gave patients 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 and made sure they 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 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 had training in key skills but did not always keep this up to date.
• Staff did not all have knowledge needed to ensure the consent process was followed and understood for all patients.
• The arrangements for governance did not always operate affectively.

We rated this service as good in safe, effective, caring, and responsive. Well led required improvement.

Updated 22 May 2023

This was the first time we rated this service. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff managed safety well. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. 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.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. They gave patients 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 and made sure they 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 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 had training in key skills but did not always keep this up to date.
• Staff did not all have knowledge needed to ensure the consent process was followed and understood for all patients.
• The arrangements for governance did not always operate affectively.

We rated this service as good in safe, effective, caring, and responsive. Well led required improvement.