St Hugh's Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff planned and involved patients in their care. This helped them identify any individual health concerns and avoid treatment delays.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff were able to access support through the wider HMT group who also ran care homes, they could access to the local mental health Trust.

Staff arranged appointments to suit the patients’ requirements. For example, people could have their appointment at the hospital either through self-pay, or e-referral through the NHS.

The service understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The hospital manager worked with the regional integrated care board (ICB) and local health partnerships. They identified where they could offer services to the local community.

The hospital managers understood the local population and demographics. They were aware of social deprivation within the area and worked with the ICB to offer services closer to home.

The service provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff talked with patients, families and carers in a way they could understand. This helped them understand their care and treatment. They used effective communication aids where necessary, including for patients with communication difficulties.

Information leaflets about the services offered were readily available in all areas.

Staff could provide information in different languages or other accessible formats. They could access language interpreters for patients if needed.

The service had monitored information around clinical indicators such as patient safety, incidents, and complaints. We observed information on service performance. Managers shared key risks with staff through the morning huddle and documented these in team meetings.

The service make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service routinely engaged with patients through a range of methods, including surveys.

The waiting area had a board inviting patients to give feedback. Patient feedback was positive about waiting times and communication from staff.

The diagnostic service had received three complaints in the 12 months before our assessment. All had been investigated with the relevant individuals. They were resolved within the provider timeframe of 20 working days.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. The service had improved signage to the x-ray department after patient feedback.

The service make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Services were designed to be accessible and timely for people most likely to have difficulty accessing care.  For example, the department was wheelchair accessible. The hospital provided diagnostic imaging services for NHS and private adult patients.

Patients told us they received treatment promptly. They did not experience long waits when arriving for treatment. Staff sent patients text messages to remind them of their appointments. If patients had no access to texts, the bookings team contacted them directly.

Staff gave patients an initial consultation. This determined if they needed surgery, with support from the diagnostics department. The walk-in x-ray service meant people did not have to return for another appointment. Patients were asked if they had had a previous x-ray to avoid unnecessary repeat scans.

The service monitored waiting times from referral. Staff ensured people could access services promptly when needed. Teams worked to reduce the number of cancelled appointments. For example, bookings staff monitored and followed up people who did not attend (DNA) their appointments, to offer them future dates

The service actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Service staff and the wider organisation promoted a culture where service users felt empowered to give their views.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures. This ensured they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

The service worked with the local health partnerships to identify areas of need for the local population. They recognised people wanted services close to home and sought opportunities to support this.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

The service support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service did not admit patients receiving end of life care.

Staff alerted clinicians promptly where they identified unexpected findings on scans or images. This enabled prompt follow-up for patients to discuss their ongoing care.

Staff gave patients receiving guided pain injections information on treatment effectiveness. This helped them understand the impact on their mobility and pain.