Rochdale Infirmary

Updated 22 December 2022

Our rating of services stayed the same. We rated them as good.

A summary of our findings about this location appears in the overall summary of the provider report.

Updated 7 February 2020

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 collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• 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 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 22 December 2022

Updated 12 August 2016

We judged the outpatient and radiology services as good .

• Mandatory training levels were good and the environment was visibly clean and tidy. Equipment was checked regularly and there was evidence to support this. Staff knew how to report incidents and this was followed up through regular staff meetings.
• Staff were using national guidelines which were being reviewed for compliance by the trust.
• There were good opportunities for staff development and there was evidence of good relationships between doctors and nurses and effective multi-disciplinary team working.
• Referral to treatment times (RTT) and cancer waiting times were better than the England average, clinicians engaged with appointment booking staff to meet targets around RTT.
• Leadership was effective in the OPD but not as good in the radiology department where there had been some recent changes in the management arrangements.

However

• The did not attend (DNA) for appointment rates in OPD were higher than the England average and the trust did not have anything in place to address this.
• DNA rates were also high in the radiology department.
• There were issues around the storage of medicines , the trust was working to change this with pharmacy colleagues.

Updated 7 February 2020

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• 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 collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• 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 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.
• 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,

• Not all staff stored medicines correctly; the fridge on the ward was not checked on a daily basis and we saw no actions taken when the temperature was out of range.
• We found the service did not always plan care to meet the needs of children and those with additional needs.

Updated 7 February 2020

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service generally had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.
• Risks to patients were well-managed; staff had developed safe systems to manage the frequent failure of trust online electronic systems.
• The service had 24-hour access to mental health liaison and specialist mental health support (if staff were concerned about a patient’s mental health) although this support was not always timely.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development.
• Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. Managers checked to make sure staff followed guidance. Staff protected the rights of patient’s subject to the Mental Health Act 1983.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.
• Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness.
• The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.
• Staff made sure patients living with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia, received the necessary care to meet all their needs.
• Leaders had the integrity, skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
• Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.
• All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. They had a good understanding of quality improvement methods and the skills to use them.

However

• Staff did not always assess and monitor patients regularly to see if they were in pain and give pain relief in a timely way.
• Patients could not always access services when needed and receive treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets.
• The service did not have a hearing loop for patients with a hearing problem.