We spoke with patients who were on the ward following surgery and patients just admitted for surgery. They all told us that the staff were approachable, friendly, polite and respectful. One patient said, "Excellent, couldn’t be happier with the operation and care." Everyone we spoke with gave us positive feedback about the quality of their overall care. We were also told, "The staff are wonderful here, nothing is too much trouble," and, "Care and the food was excellent.” Other comments included, "Everyone was well organised," "I did not have to ask for pain relief, it was given regularly," and "No complaints, no waiting and no cancelling, everything to schedule."

We found that patients were happy with the amount of information they had been given about their surgery and said the ward staff kept them informed and respected their choices. The patient documentation and treatment pathways were comprehensive and well completed.

Patients were cared for in a comfortable, clean and hygienic environment.

We examined medicine storage, administration and recording systems and found them to be safe and accountable.

We found that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet patients' needs.

The hospital had an effective complaints system in place ensured patients had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on, without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.

We spoke with patients who were on the ward waiting to go home following treatment and patients just admitted for day surgery. They all told us that the staff were approachable, friendly, polite and respectful.

We spoke to nine patients who were staying on the ward at the time of our visit. Everyone we spoke to gave us positive feedback about the quality of their overall care.

Patients were happy with the amount of information they had been given about their surgery and said the ward staff kept them informed and respected their choices.

We were told that their admission date had not been changed by the hospital and they were happy with how their surgery had gone.

Patients told us that they felt well cared for and safe and they were satisfied with the support and treatment they received.

We received positive feedback about the staff team, comments included, “very kind and friendly”, “put me at ease immediately” “knowledgeable, told me everything that was going to happen” and “pain relief was given regularly, I was offered, I did not have to ask”, "excellent, all staff were kind. Other comments included “I received a booklet with information of the procedure”, “food is good, we get a choice of what we fancy”.

Spire Sussex Hospital is operated by Spire Healthcare Limited. The hospital has 29 beds. Facilities include two operating theatres X-ray, outpatient and physiotherapy departments.

The hospital provides surgery and outpatients and diagnostic imaging. We inspected both of these core services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 19 and 20 December 2016 along with an unannounced visit to the hospital on 5 January 2017.

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 core service.

Services we rate

We rated this hospital as outstanding overall, and we rated caring, responsive and well–led as outstanding. This was because:

• People were truly respected as individuals and supported to be involved in their care. There was a strong focus on maintaining the privacy and dignity of patients. Patients’ feedback about the quality of care and their experience was overwhelmingly positive.

• Patients received a service that was tailored to meet their needs. There were systems that ensured patients with special needs, such as those living with dementia, received appropriate care although these accounted for a small proportion of patients seen.

• Patients could access care and treatment promptly at a time that suited them.

• Complaints were taken seriously and were investigated and responded to within agreed timescales. Changes to the service were made as a result of complaints

• The hospital management team worked collaboratively with commissioners and a co-located NHS hospital to ensure the needs of the local population were met. The management team were proactive in developing services, such as the installation of an MRI scanner to meet local needs.

• The vision and values were understood and well embedded in staff’s daily work. Staff felt supported by a leadership team that inspired them and who were credible and visible. Staff were proud to work at the hospital and there were high levels of satisfaction across all staff groups. Staff felt involved in the running of the hospital on a day to day level and in major projects.

• A safe and high quality service was assured through robust governance structures that proactively reviewed performance, identified areas of risk or emerging concern and made arrangements to mitigate these risks and drive improvement .

• There were innovative approaches to gather feedback from patients and actions to improve services were made as a result of such information.

We rated safe and effective as good. This was because:

• Data demonstrated a good track record in safety. There were clearly defined systems to report, investigate and learn from incidents and when things went wrong, and the duty of candour was enacted.

• There were sufficient numbers of staff with the necessary skills, experience and qualifications to meet patients’ needs. There was a programme of mandatory training in key safety areas which all staff completed and systems for checking staff competencies and for identifying and meeting staff’s training needs.

• There were systems and processes for recognising and reporting potential abuse, for preventing and controlling infection and for managing medicines which were consistently applied by staff.

• Care was planned and delivered in line with current standards and best practice. There were audit arrangements to provide assurance of this and systems to review new guidance and oversee its implementation.

• Patients had access to a full range of health care professionals who worked together as an integrated team to meet patients’ needs. Staff could access patients’ records and other clinical information when it was required. There were systems to follow up patients after discharge and to liaise with their GPs.

• Patients consented to their treatment in line with relevant legislation, including those who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Following this inspection, we told the provider it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help improve the service.

Professor Edward Baker

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (South)