• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: Bodmin Treatment Centre

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Boundary Road, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 2QT (01208) 262520

Provided and run by:
Ramsay Health Care UK Operations Limited

All Inspections

12 & 13 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Bodmin Treatment Centre is an independent treatment centre operated by Ramsay Health Care UK Operations Limited. We carried out a comprehensive inspection as part of our national programme to inspect and rate all independent hospitals. We carried out the announced inspection on 12 and 13 October 2016.

The treatment centre provides surgery and outpatients to NHS patients and privately funded patients, including self-funded and medical insured. The day surgery unit offers procedures in orthopaedic, general surgery, ears nose and throat (ENT), gynaecology, maxillofacial / oral, ophthalmic and urology. The day surgery unit has two theatres and one recovery area. The recovery area is located at the end of corridor close to both theatres and can accommodate up to five patients. The treatment centre does not operate on children only adults (18 and above) and has no overnight beds. The outpatient department has five consulting rooms and a minor procedure room.

We rated the service overall as requires improvement. We rated surgery and outpatients as requires improvement. This was because we had concerns about aspects of safety and leadership in surgery and outpatients services. We found the management of incidents and governance processes were inadequate. However, we found the service provided good care for its patients and those close to them, and services were planned and delivered in a way that met the needs of the local people.

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 account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

We rated this hospital as requires improvement overall.

We found areas of practice that require improvement in surgery services and outpatients:

  • Not all incidents were being reported via the providers reporting system. Therefore, incidents were not properly investigated and actions taken to minimise any risks and analysis of trends to prevent reoccurrence were not in place.

  • There was no guidance on quality standards for sepsis screening and management pertinent to Bodmin Treatment Centre.

  • The procedure for emergency calls for collapsed patients was not specific enough and staff were not identified as to whom would attended.

  • Staff did not have a clear understanding of risks, as there was no departmental or detailed local risk register to allow risks to be recorded, escalated and managed locally.

  • A corporate audit programme was in place but actions to improve results and performance were not implemented effectively and rarely followed through.

  • Governance arrangements did not always identify areas of concern or risk.

  • Some senior management were not always visible and/or accessible to staff.

  • There was formal engagement with staff but they felt unable to give their views on the service provided due to time constraints.

  • Staff had not received specific training on caring for patients living with dementia.

In surgery:

  • The endoscopy unit in theatre two did not meet the requirements for Joint Advisory Group (JAG) accreditation. JAG accreditation is the formal validation that an endoscopy service has demonstrated it delivers against a range of quality improvement and assessment measures. The unit was not validated because the recovery area did not meet the requirements for privacy. Plans had been submitted to address this and they were awaiting a response at the time of our inspection.

  • Staff were not following all National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance as required, especially relating to recording of patients temperature pre, during and post operations. There was no documented evidence to demonstrate if all staff were following NICE guidance.

In outpatients:

  • Out of date medication found in the outpatient department.

  • Medical equipment inside the resuscitation trolley on the outpatient department was outside its use by date.

  • Infection and prevention controls were not adhered to by all staff.

  • Guidance on the cleaning of specialist equipment was not always adhered to.

  • Leak testing of nasopharyngeal endoscopes was not performed between each patient use, which was a requirement in line with guidance for decontamination, Health Technical Memorandum 01/06 part E testing.

  • Staff were not always following medication management policy.

  • Resuscitation procedures were not formalised and scenarios within the outpatient department were not practiced. There was no evidence that results from audits were being used to highlight areas for improvement within the department.

  • There was a lack of communication between senior management and the outpatient department as incidents and learning outcomes were not always shared internally.

However,

We found outstanding practice in relation to patient care in surgery services:

  • They exceeded the England average scores in the Patient Led assessments of care environment (PLACE).

  • Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data for groin hernia repairs also exceeded the England average.

We found good practice in relation to surgery services and outpatients:

  • There were no hospital-acquired infections from July 2015 to June 2016.

  • All staff that we spoke with understood the principles of duty of candour.

  • Patient records were stored securely and completed in full.

  • All staff were up to date with their mandatory training.

  • All care and treatment was consultant led and delivered.

  • The compliance rate for yearly staff appraisals was high.

  • Staff had access to all information needed to meet the needs of patients during their treatment.

  • Patients were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.

  • The vast majority of comments from patients were very positive and they had good results from the NHS Friends and Family Test (NHS FFT).

  • Patients were encouraged to be actively involved in the decision making process regarding their care and proposed operation/procedure.

  • Information about their condition, treatment and operation/procedure was shared with the patient so they were aware of the benefits and any potential risks.

  • Staff demonstrated good communication to patients.

  • Information about the needs of the local population was used to inform how services were planned and delivered and they worked in partnership with the local commissioners.

  • Complaints were reviewed and investigated in line with policy and shared at relevant committee meetings and lessons learnt disseminated.

  • Staff were highly positive about their department manager and the some of the hospital management team.

  • Senior local leadership within the hospital were visible, approachable and supportive.

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, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with three requirement notices that affected surgery and outpatient services. Details are at the end of the report.

Name of signatory

Ted Baker

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

27 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the outpatient department and spoke with two outpatients in the main waiting room at Bodmin Treatment Centre. Patients told us they had good information beforehand and the waiting times were good. We also spoke with staff as well as the manager, matron and medical records coordinator. All said they enjoyed working at Bodmin Treatment Centre, that there were good training opportunities and they felt supported both by their colleagues and seniors and also by Bodmin Treatment Centre.

There was one comment left on the NHS Choices website over the last six months, which reflected a positive experience by the patient who had received care at Bodmin Treatment Centre.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

The hospital was hygienic and clean, and on the day of our inspection free from odours.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

11 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the theatres and outpatient departments. We spoke to five outpatients and a relative of a patient in the main waiting room at Bodmin Treatment Centre. Another relative declined to speak to us as his wife was currently lodging a complaint against the service. Everyone that did comment was happy with the service they received. They said they had good information beforehand and the waiting times were not too bad. We also spoke with six staff as well as the clinical lead and Human Resources Coordinator. All said they enjoyed working at Bodmin Treatment Centre, that there were good training opportunities and they felt supported both by their colleagues and seniors and also by Bodmin Treatment Centre.

There were no comments left on the NHS Choices website over the last six months.

We saw people's privacy and dignity were protected and we found the care documentation identified that people's care needs were consistently met.

People were protected from abuse and staff were trained and supported to carry out their roles.

The hospital was hygienic and clean, and on the day of our inspection free from odours.

We found there were systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided at the Bodmin Treatment Centre.

21 March 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Termination of Pregnancy Services

We did not speak to people who used this service as part of this review. We looked at a random sample of medical records. This was to check that current practice ensured that treatment for the termination of pregnancy was not commenced unless two certificated opinions from doctors had been obtained.

13 March 2012

During a routine inspection

Without exception, everyone we spoke to on our visit was positive about their

care and treatment and described staff as caring, helpful, and friendly. They were

aware of their treatment plans and felt involved in their care process.

A comment made on the 2011 NHS patient satisfaction survey was that staff 'were very mindful of the dignity of the patient'.

People spoke well of their experience at Bodmin Treatment Centre. One person was using the service for the second time and said he would be recommending it to his friends and family. He said that everything had been explained clearly to him and he thought that the staff were very knowledgeable. He said he felt involved in his care at all times.

Staff told us that they had had safeguarding training (children and adults) as part of their induction and regularly thereafter.

All of the staff we spoke to confirmed that they had access to mandatory training and they confirmed they had attended annual update training which included basic or advanced life support, health and safety, data protection and moving and handling.

Staff we spoke to said that the induction process had been thorough. They told us that all staff were very approachable and that they continued to have regular meetings with their mentor until they felt it was no longer needed.

Staff told us that supervision (one to one meeting) was on a 'casual' basis and that no active staff supervision programme was available between appraisals. They said that supervision was available if requested.

Some of the comments that people made on the 2011 NHS patient survey included 'the staff were first class, nurses so caring and helpful. My surgeon was informative and thorough', 'everything about my care at Bodmin Hospital Centre was excellent' and 'I was met with a professional approach by the receptionist, which carried on through to the nurses and doctors. I was made to feel relaxed and confident at all times'.

We saw that nurses talked to people using the service and they discussed their care and updated the care documentation to reflect what had been discussed.