The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Nuffield Health Wolverhampton Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Wood Road, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, WV6 8LE (01902) 754177

Provided and run by:
Nuffield Health

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Nuffield Health Wolverhampton Hospital on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Nuffield Health Wolverhampton Hospital, you can give feedback on this service.

16 August 2022

During a routine inspection

  • 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 six 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 to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • The managers recognised the challenges posed by the aging facility and equipment. Staff described the environment in one of the theatres as cramped. However, there was no definitive plan with timescales to address these concerns.
  • The hospital did not undertake an effective health and safety risk assessment or audit. Risks such as the clutter in theatre equipment room which made it difficult for staff to access equipment and clean the floor effectively was not identified.
  • The hospital did not have an established management team because the hospital director and matron had recently started working at the service. The matron was interim until the new matron commenced employment in October 2022.
  • The response rate for both the patient satisfaction and staff surveys was low (20 -30%).

14 and 19 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Nuffield Health Wolverhampton Hospital provides a range of clinical services including orthopaedics, ophthalmology, oncology, ear, nose and throat (ENT), gynaecology and general surgery. It has two operating theatres of which one has a laminar flow system, which is a system to control air and reduce infection during operations. There are 27 en-suite bedrooms and two chemotherapy rooms on the second floor and the hospital has a diagnostic suite offering mammography, fluoroscopy and general x-ray. It also offers 10 consulting rooms within the outpatient department.

We carried out an announced inspection visit on 14 September 2016 and an unannounced inspection on 19 September 2016. 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 into account what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We conducted a comprehensive inspection at Nuffield Health Wolverhampton Hospital as part of our independent healthcare inspections programme. The inspection was conducted using the CQC’s new methodology. The inspection team inspected the following core services:

• Surgery

• Outpatients and Diagnostic imaging (including chemotherapy treatment).

The hospital carried out minimal medical care service activity but had recently introduced chemotherapy treatment services. The service was small and in its infancy at the time of the inspection and did not warrant its own separate report. Therefore, chemotherapy services were inspected and reported as part of the outpatients and diagnostic imaging service.

Prior to our inspection visit, we considered a range of quality indicators captured through our monitoring processes. In addition, we sought the views of a range partners and stakeholders.

Key elements of this process were focus groups with healthcare professionals and feedback from the public.

We spoke with a range of staff in the hospital, including nurses, allied health professionals, support staff and consultants. During our inspection, we reviewed services provided by Nuffield Health Wolverhampton Hospital in the ward areas, operating theatres, outpatients, pharmacy and imaging departments.

We observed how people were cared for and reviewed patient records of 16 patients. We spoke with 12 patients and their relatives, 26 staff, including consultants.

We collected 69 completed comment cards by people attending the hospital. There were 68 (98.5%) positive comments recorded on the feedback. Only one negative comment was noted.

Our key findings were as follows:

Overall, we rated the hospital as Good

We saw several areas of good practice including:

  • There was a good induction process for new and agency staff.
  • We saw a positive incident reporting culture with good quality incident reports.
  • The medicine management system and safety checklists were good.
  • We saw supportive managers at all levels and staff told us they were visible and approachable.
  • There was protected swipe card access in areas of the diagnostic imaging department.

However, there were areas where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should;

  • The provider held records securely however; they had no tracking tools in place to prevent loss of patient notes when consultants took them offsite.
  • Work towards recommended guidelines such as the Health Technical Memorandum 03-01: Specialised ventilation for healthcare premises when carrying out minor procedures outside of the main theatre areas.
  • Ensure mandatory training for Immediate Life Support (ILS) is kept up to date.
  • The hospital had no written procedure for covering consultants when on leave or unavailable. Consultants verbalised their availability to OPD and Diagnostic Imaging staff as an informal process. We saw this arrangement as not a robust system and needed to be strengthened.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements. We also issued the provider with a requirement notice that affected surgery and outpatients. Details are at the end of the report.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

27 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We visited the hospital which provided care and treatment to patients. We spent time in the ward and out-patient departments. We spoke with five patients, the registered manager, three nurses and two health care assistants.

We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patients safety and welfare.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of patients who used the service and others.

Records we saw had been reviewed, updated and kept securely to protect the information held about patients and staff.

5 March 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we visited the ward, outpatient's department, and the x-ray department. We spoke with ten people who were receiving treatment at the hospital or were attending an outpatient's appointment. We also spoke with eight members of staff, including the acting matron/ theatre manager, x-ray manager, human resources coordinator, nursing and care staff.

The people we spoke with from both the inpatient and outpatient departments were very satisfied with the care and treatment they received. One person told us, "They have been marvellous, I am very impressed, I had all the information I needed prior to my treatment and the staff have looked after me very well since my operation.” Another person told us, “I cannot fault anything it has been a positive experience and I have been well cared for.”

The records that we looked at showed that people were involved in the planning of their treatment and they had signed to agree to their treatment being provided. The records provided evidence that assessments had been carried out with care plans and risk assessments in place for staff to follow.

Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of harm or abuse.

Staff felt well supported by the service. They received training appropriate to their role. They told us their practice was appraised every six months.

7 March 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day we visited the hospital it was quiet on the admissions unit so we did not get the opportunity to speak to anyone there. We did however speak with two people who were returning for a follow-up appointment after receiving treatment at the hospital.

Both people we spoke with were very positive about their experience. One person told us they 'couldn't fault the service'. The other person we spoke with said 'I feel that I was well looked after'.

People attending the hospital are regularly asked their views through the patient satisfaction questionnaire. Information from the questionnaires that we looked at showed overall high levels of satisfaction and confidence in the staff.