Fulwood Hall 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

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

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

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 made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

Staff assessed individual needs as part of the suitability criteria to ensure treatments were person-centred. Staff followed the provider’s policy on privacy and dignity which included communication to meet each patient’s individual needs. Staff could access the provider’s policy for supporting patients with specific communication needs to enable people to be fully involved in their care. This supported staff to recognise any need for reasonable adjustments such as a passport or any additional communication needs to ensure individualised care.

Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences. The catering services adapted to the needs of the patients, which included catering for patients with food allergies or intolerances.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service was located in an area with a diverse multi-cultural community and provided care and treatment to people in the locality.

Following staff handovers, nurses were allocated patients to care for providing a point of contact for the patient and continuity of care during their stay.

The provider had relationships with external agencies. We were provided with examples of multiagency working to support patients to access surgical services and to enable safe discharges.

The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had an accessible information standard policy (AIS) which detailed the processes to support identification of patients who required additional support to access information, and how to record, flag and share the patient’s additional needs appropriately.

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets for the range of surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health. We checked if information was available in languages other than English and alternative formats such as large fonts. Leaflets could be produced depending on individual patient need. Information was also available on the services website.

The provider accessed two interpreter and translation services for patients whose first language was not English. Patients with hearing or visual impairments could also be supported and a hearing loop was available if needed.

In the 12 months prior to the inspection there had been no data security or confidentiality breaches that were reportable to the Information Commissioners Office.

The service generally made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. In addition to the Friends and Family Test survey, the provider collected service specific feedback in a range of formats. Feedback leaflets were provided that encouraged feedback for improvement and compliments.

In the 12 months prior to inspection there had been 9 complaints raised for surgery.

We reviewed 5 formal complaints received in the last 12 months and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the period set out in the local policy.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigations of complaints and acted on the findings. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

There had been no confirmed cases escalated to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) or Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS).

Information was available to indicate how to submit feedback including signposting to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) for NHS patients and Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) for self-funded patients.

The service usually made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards.

The service carried out a range of planned surgeries that were a combination of NHS patients and those self-funded. As the provider did not have facilities to treat patients assessed as high risk, patients that could be safely treated at the hospital were accepted. In the 12 months prior to inspection, the service had performed, 2066 general surgery operations, 327 gynaecology surgeries, 1408 ophthalmology procedures, 4033 orthopaedic surgeries, 335 spinal surgeries,104 plastic surgery procedures, 473 urology surgeries and 15 oral and maxillofacial procedures.

Staff supported patients with additional needs and made reasonable adjustments. In the 12 months prior to the inspection 77 patients had been treated under an admission that had alerts added to their records representing their additional needs. The purpose of these alerts was to make staff aware of specific support needs of patients. We were provided with examples of care given to patients with protected characteristics.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. In the 12 months prior to the inspection 948 operations had been cancelled by the hospital. Hospital-led cancellations occurred due to, clinical concerns identified on the day of surgery, operational issues within the hospital, administrative errors and environmental or staffing factors. Patients who were clinically safe to proceed were rescheduled for surgery within 28 days. The service investigated when a patient was affected by a hospital-led cancellation and implemented action plans to reduce impacts to patients and services due to cancellations.

Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider’s equality, diversity, and inclusion policy outlined responsibilities for both staff and patients to ensure that no one was discriminated against based on their individual status such as age, disability, gender, race, faith, or sexual orientation.

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

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning a delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes. We saw information which showed reasonable adjustments had been made and support had been given to patients with protected characteristics and there were systems and process used to tailor specific support when needed. This meant patients had been able to access care and treatment and make informed decisions about their care.

Discharge arrangements optimised the outcomes for all patients, including those with additional needs. Where necessary, carers and community services were involved to encourage and support a return to the patient’s pre-admission condition.

Patients were usually supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future following discharge.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.

Staff provided patients with information and medicines if needed including advice about what to do in the event of an emergency or concern about recovery at the time of discharge.