Cleveland Clinic London 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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information in a format people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff took time to speak with patients and their families to understand their needs and provide person centred care. Patients told us staff took the time to understand what they needed, and they were provided with clear information so they could make informed choices about their care. The role of individual staff members was explained to patients and families, ensuring it was clear who was involved in their care and the staff member’s role. Families were given clear information on how to contact and access the ward when visiting or requiring updates.

Staff undertook a series of risk assessments to identify the individual needs of patients. Care plans were then tailored to the patients’ requirements, such as using aids to reduce the risk of falls.

Senior leaders regularly visited patient areas to speak with staff, patients and families to gather different views and opinions of the service. They told us this was an important way to understand the patient journey and put the patient experience at the centre of all they did.

The service demonstrated an understanding of the diverse health and social care needs of its patient population, providing care that was joined-up, flexible, and responsive to individual requirements. Staff were aware of the diverse backgrounds of the patients they served, including those from the UK and overseas. Prior to a patient’s admission, the case manager was informed of any specific needs to ensure appropriate care and support was in place.

The service had systems in place to support the communications needs of patients. Interpreters were accessible via hand-held devices, and Arabic interpreters were available during the day, meaning patients were able to understand their care and treatment options, allowing for a more inclusive, patient-centred approach. A sign language interpreter could be accessed when needed.

The case manager provided a continuity of care by being actively involved in patients’ discharge planning ensuring coordinated support to meet their needs. Ward staff contacted patients 24 hours after discharge to check on their wellbeing and confirm if further assistance was needed.

Patients individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified and recorded to support their treatment. Patient information booklets were available in different languages and formats, including Arabic and braille. The provider used an independent company to produce information about procedures in different languages and an easy read format, so all patients felt informed.

Across the site, signs were in braille, lifts announced the floor they had reached, and hearing loops were in all reception areas when patients first entered the hospital. This supported different communication needs.

The provider had an information security policy. It referenced national guidance and legislation to ensure data collected about people was kept safe.

Patients were encouraged to provide feedback and share their experience of the service. An online portal was accessible through a QR code, or a link could be sent by email. Comment cards were also available to fill out and patients and their families could easily share their experiences and raise concerns in a way that suited them.

Staff were informed about both positive and negative feedback received, and they could provide examples of how this feedback had been acted upon. One example involved a patient’s concerns about food arriving cold. In response to this, the clinic implemented the use of metal food covers to keep meals warm, demonstrating patient feedback had directly led to improvements in the service.

There was an open and transparent approach to handling complaints which reassured patients their concerns would be taken seriously and investigated. The service maintained open communication with patients, informing them about how their feedback had been addressed and involving them in shaping the action taken.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement, and staff told us they were actively engaged in incorporating learning into their daily practice. Meeting minutes we reviewed showed complaints were discussed and staff reminded of action they needed to take. For example, following a patient fall, staff were reminded to make sure one staff member was available to answer call bells at all times.

Patients could access the care, treatment, and support they needed without facing barriers, promoting equality and protecting their rights. All buildings and wards had step free access making the premises accessible to people with mobility issues.

The diverse dietary needs of patients were met by providing a range of meals including vegan, vegetarian and Kosher alternatives. A prayer room was available for patient’s religious and spiritual needs promoting inclusivity and respect for individual preferences.

The service could access interpreters to overcome communication barriers. A staff member gave an example where a language barrier had initially stopped a patient from engaging with physiotherapy. By involving the patient’s family and an interpreter, staff successfully addressed the issue, and the patient received the care and support they needed.

Staff we spoke with were aware of potential discrimination and inequalities that could disadvantage different groups of patients accessing services. Staff received unconscious bias training as part of their mandatory training to help them recognise discrimination. They were committed to making reasonable adjustments for disabled patients and those facing communication barriers.

The service admitted patients from diverse backgrounds and those from international communities such as the Middle East. Many of the international patients spoke Arabic and the hospital took steps to ensure inclusivity by employing an Arabic-speaking medical consultant to support patients who did not speak English. This meant patients received information they needed in a language they could understand. Posters in Arabic were displayed in some areas, and the hospital had access to interpreting services 24 hours a day.

The hospital provided mandatory training modules on healthcare inequalities for staff. These modules helped staff understand and address potential inequalities in care, support, and treatment, and promote equality in all aspects of patient care.

Patient partners met quarterly and provided feedback to the service from the patient perspective. Staff used this information to ensure experiences of care were equitable using feedback to tailor its services.

Patients were included in planning their future care and treatment and the service supported people making important life decisions. Staff made sure patients were informed, understood their options and were given time to make informed decisions about their future.

The medical team reviewed each patient during daily board rounds. Each patient’s condition was discussed and the plans for their ongoing care once they had been discharged.

People approaching the end of life were identified and the patient and their family members were able to discuss what was important to them and personalise their care plan. Staff told us most patients nearing the end of life were referred to their general practitioners for further care planning and management.

The electronic patient records (EPR) included documentation such as do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) and details relating to the ceiling of care the patient wished to receive. Staff told us conversations with patients and their families were held in an open and sensitive manner and documented in the patients notes. The electronic patient records included mandatory templates that prompted clinicians to complete the key sections, and a reminder appeared in red if they failed to do so.