Rivers 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Patients told us staff listened to them and took their needs and preferences seriously. Patients and family members gave positive feedback about how staff treated them and said they felt involved in decisions about care.

Care records we reviewed included treatment plans that reflected people’s individual needs and preferences. This showed staff considered what mattered to people when planning care.

The service used systems to support people with complex healthcare needs, including those with mental health conditions, dementia or learning disabilities. Staff took a structured approach to identifying these needs and added alerts to patient records, so information was available for future appointments. This helped staff provide consistent and appropriate support tailored to each person’s needs.

We scored this quality statement 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 provided care for people funded by the NHS as well as those who were privately insured or self‑paying. Referrals came from GPs or through self‑referral. Senior leaders told us they worked proactively with system partners to sustain NHS partnerships and support delivery of the NHS elective recovery plan.

Staff worked collaboratively to plan and coordinate care. They reviewed risks and care plans using an electronic pre‑operative assessment system, which enabled nurses, anaesthetists and relevant specialists to agree next steps and maintain consistent decisions as people moved between outpatient, diagnostic and surgical services.

Daily clinical alerts helped keep pharmacy, therapy teams and other allied health professionals informed of changes in people’s needs. This meant medication, rehabilitation and follow‑up plans could be adjusted promptly.

Weekly multidisciplinary planning meetings looked ahead to staffing, equipment and expected demand, which reduced gaps at handover and helped ensure people saw the right clinician at the right time.

The service monitored themes relating to outpatient clinic cancellations and took action to reduce late cancellations. This supported continuity of care and helped minimise disruption for patients.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Patients told us staff provided them with the information they needed about their care and treatment. They said staff explained information clearly and took time to answer questions, which helped them feel informed and reassured.

Staff made sure people knew how to access information about their treatment, their rights and how to raise concerns if needed. Clinicians kept families and carers informed when patients wished, which helped everyone involved understand progress and next steps in treatment. Information was available in accessible formats to help meet people's communication needs.

We scored this quality statement 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 made it easy for people to share feedback, ideas or concerns about their care and treatment. Patients gave positive feedback about their experience of outpatient services. Feedback showed high satisfaction levels, with 89% of patients rating staff, quality of care and confidence in treatment positively.

Staff collected feedback through a range of channels, including digital surveys, social media and a patient loyalty metric. This helped the service capture feedback from different groups of people.

Leaders reviewed complaints and concerns through clinical governance meetings. They considered complaints and any opportunities for learning and improvement. Leaders shared learning from complaints and followed duty of candour when things went wrong. Learning from complaints was discussed through governance processes to support improvements in the service.

We scored this quality statement 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.

The service monitored access to outpatient care and waiting times. Waiting times for appointments were consistently low, and most people were seen on time. Where delays occurred, staff kept people informed, which helped reduce uncertainty and supported a more positive experience.

Leaders monitored waiting times and identified emerging trends that needed action. Staff had started to record clinics that ran late as formal incidents. This helped leaders understand the impact on patients and staff and take steps to reduce delays.

The service had a resident medical doctor available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This meant patients who became unwell while attending outpatient appointments could receive timely receive timely medical support when needed.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Staff ensured facilities were accessible to patients and visitors. The service provided dedicated disabled parking, accessible toilets and staff were available to help when needed. This helped people access services more easily and supported a positive experience.

Staff followed the Accessible Information Standard and recorded people’s communication and information needs at the first point of contact. Reasonable adjustments were arranged to support people with sensory impairments, learning disabilities, autism, dementia or who had other communication needs. These included interpreters, alternative communication formats and support for mobility needs. This helped ensure people understood their care and were able to take part in decisions about their treatment.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Patients told us staff supported them to make informed choices about their care and involved family members when this was important to them. Staff explained options clearly and made sure people had enough time to consider their decisions.

Staff told us they helped people plan for future care by giving clear information and answering questions, which supported shared decision‑making. Communication needs were identified early, and staff arranged interpreters or provided information in alternative formats when needed. This helped ensure people could fully take part in discussions about their treatment and future care.