HCA Healthcare UK The Lister Hospital

Updated 13 March 2024

The Lister Hospital is owned and operated by HCA International Ltd. The hospital opened in 1985 and has been part of HCA healthcare since 2000. It is a private hospital in Chelsea, London.

The Lister Hospital provides day surgery, inpatient care, medical care, critical care, and, outpatients and diagnostic imaging for adults over the age of 18 years old requiring treatment and care for a variety of surgical procedures and medical conditions. Surgical services are consultant-led and include orthopaedic, gynaecological and general surgery. Medical services are a small proportion of hospital activity Services are consultant-led and include an endoscopy service. Wards provide 24-hour, 7 day a week care.

The urgent care centre (UCC) is a GP-led service that provides care to self-paying or insured patients. It provides urgent, non-emergency care on a walk-in basis for minor injuries and illnesses, including plaster casting for broken bones, diagnostic point of care testing and a range of other treatments. The UCC includes a resuscitation room, mobile x-ray equipment, and a satellite laboratory in addition to triage and treatment spaces. It is based in the main hospital and has a dedicated patient access officer team to greet and register patients. In the 12 months prior to our inspection the UCC treated an average of 350 patients per month.

The Lister Hospital is home to a number of specialist units and teams including The Menopause Clinic and The Bunion Clinic. The hospital works closely with leading consultants across a range of medical disciplines.

The hospital provides treatment for private patients from the UK and overseas. Services are provided to both insured and self-pay private patients.

The registered manager for the location had been in place since March 2017.

The provider is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury
• Surgical procedures
• Diagnostic and screening procedures
• Family planning
• Management of supply of blood and blood derived products

Diagnostic Imaging at The Lister Hospital was last inspected in 2017 as part of the Outpatients and Diagnostic Imaging core service, where it was rated as good overall and good in all domains. Since the last inspection, the outpatient and diagnostic imaging core services CQC inspection approach has been split into two separate core services.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same 5 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.

Updated 13 March 2024

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as outstanding because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. They had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed infection risks 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 provided good care and treatment. They gave patients enough to eat and drink and gave them pain relief when needed. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were skilled and experienced. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care. Patients had access to good information and key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with exceptional compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff empowered and provided strong emotional support to patients, families, and carers to minimise their distress. Staff were fully committed to supporting patients, families, and carers to understand their condition and empower decisions about their care and treatment. People thought that staff went the extra mile and said care and support exceeded their expectations.
• The service actively sought to provide the care pathways needed for the patients they served. Staff went above and beyond to make reasonable adjustments to help patients access their services. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait for treatment. Patients did not have to wait to be seen and surgeries could even be booked for the same day if patients felt this was what they needed. The service had a very low number of complaints, and these were very well managed.
• There was an embedded system of leadership development and succession planning. Staff felt respected and valued and were focused on providing patient centred care. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and staff could raise concerns without fear. Leaders operated excellent governance processes, and demonstrated commitment to best practice, performance and risk management systems and processes. They identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and identified actions to reduce their impact effectively and in a timely manner. All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. Staff were actively participating in research and improvement projects.

Updated 13 March 2024

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

Our rating of this service ​improved​. We rated it as ​outstanding​ 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. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

• 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 high levels of compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. Survey results were consistently positive in these areas. Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers and patient feedback reflected the individualised care they received.

• 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.

• The leadership and governance systems were used to drive and improve the delivery of high-quality person-centred care. Governance processes were embedded, and leaders demonstrated a commitment to high quality performance, risk management and best practice. There was a vision for what the service wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action, these were aligned with corporate strategies and priorities. There was an embedded system of leadership development and succession planning. Staff felt respected and valued and were focused on providing patient centred care. They were recognised for their achievements. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and staff could raise concerns without fear. There was a range of patient engagement processes that included a patient forum, survey and daily engagement with senior staff to ensure patients needs were met and action taken to ensure a high-quality experience of the service. Staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. Leaders encouraged innovation and staff actively participated in improvement projects.

Updated 30 June 2017

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

The hospital has four level three intensive care beds in private rooms and two level two high dependency beds in a bay. Critical care services are provided in a dedicated unit with direct access from theatres and a critical care outreach service is provided 24-hours, seven days a week.

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

Updated 13 March 2024

Our rating of this service ​remained the same​. 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. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and had access to good information. Key services were available to suit patients' needs.

• 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 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.

Updated 13 March 2024

Our rating of this service ​stayed the same​. 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. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

• 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 exceptional 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.

Updated 13 March 2024

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

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. They had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed infection risks 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 provided good care and treatment. They gave patients enough to eat and drink and gave them pain relief when needed. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were skilled and experienced. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care. Patients had access to good information and key services were available seven days a week.

• Staff treated patients with exceptional compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff empowered and provided strong emotional support to patients, families, and carers to minimise their distress. Staff were fully committed to supporting patients, families, and carers to understand their condition and empower decisions about their care and treatment. People thought that staff went the extra mile and said care and support exceeded their expectations.

• The service actively sought to provide the care pathways needed for the patients they served. Staff went above and beyond to make reasonable adjustments to help patients access their services. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait for treatment. Patients did not have to wait to be seen and surgeries could even be booked for the same day if patients felt this was what they needed. The service had a very low number of complaints, and these were very well managed.

• There was an embedded system of leadership development and succession planning. Staff felt respected and valued and were focused on providing patient centred care. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and staff could raise concerns without fear. Leaders operated excellent governance processes, and demonstrated commitment to best practice, performance and risk management systems and processes. They identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and identified actions to reduce their impact effectively and in a timely manner. All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. Staff were actively participating in research and improvement projects.

Updated 13 March 2024

We have not previously inspected urgent care. We rated it as good because:

• The service was led by a core team of skilled staff who demonstrated a significant commitment to professional development and clinical competencies. Staff levels were consistent, and the team was stable, with very little turnover or unplanned absence.
• Care was demonstrably evidence-based, and the team had developed a range of audit and benchmarking tools to drive continuous improvement. Peer review, a research-enabling culture, and support from senior medical staff contributed to a culture of effective practices.
• Multidisciplinary working was embedded in the service and was supported by remote radiology services and an extensive laboratory service, along with care pathways to private and NHS specialists. There was a strong focus on improving care for patients experiencing a mental health problem.
• Feedback from patients was consistently good with no complaints or persistent areas for improvement.
• The service planned and developed care to meet demand. They used resources to support good standards of access, such as interpretation services and tools to support communication with patients living with cognitive challenges or learning disabilities.
• Staff engaged with colleagues across the organisation and regional health economy and were proactive in using patient engagement to improve standards of care and outcomes.
• Staff felt respected, recognised, and valued and were driven to explore new ways of working and test changes to existing policies and practices.

However:

• The different patient record systems meant changes to initial clinical information were not always clearly updated. This presented a risk to patients.
• While the department managed ligature risk in line with national standards, staff had limited awareness of the provider’s policies.

Urgent care 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.