Springfield 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 people were at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, 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.

We scored the service as 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.

We reviewed 11 patient care records and observed care plans that were aligned to the treatment being provided and reflected the clinical and personal requirements of each patient.

Patients told us that they experienced person-centred care with staff responding to any changes in individual needs. Patients described feeling listened to and supported and gave positive feedback about how staff treated them.

Staff told us how they made reasonable adjustments based on patients’ individual needs. This included the allocation of extra time in the anaesthetic room prior to an endoscopy procedure if a patient was, for example, very anxious. Staff identified these needs at the preoperative assessment and asked additional questions to understand how best to support each patient.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Staff demonstrated an understanding of patients’ needs and provided appropriate care and treatment.

We scored the service as 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 treated patients that were NHS funded and patients who were privately insured or self-paying. Leaders told us they worked proactively with the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) to support NHS recovery plans. The hospital’s endoscopy activity helped support capacity and reduce waiting lists at the local NHS hospital.

Staff described how they communicated directly with acute trusts, GPs and specialist teams when people required further investigation, emergency escalation or onward referral. Clear handover processes were in place, including sharing clinical information, diagnostic results and treatment plans to ensure people experienced seamless transitions between services.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of the diverse needs of people using the service, including cultural, communication, and individual support requirements. They were able to describe how they adapted their approach to meet these needs, such as making reasonable adjustments, using accessible information, and involving carers where appropriate.

Patients spoke positively about their care and said staff coordinated it well. They told us staff listened to them, made them feel valued, and involved them in decisions throughout their care journey, from referral and initial pre-treatment assessment through to ongoing treatment.

We scored the service as 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 necessary information about their care and treatment. They told us staff shared information clearly and answered any questions they had.

Staff could provide information in different languages or other accessible formats and could access language interpreters if needed.

Staff received training in data security and that they could easily access information such as care records, policies, and guidance relevant to their role.

Following endoscopy procedures, staff gave patients written copies of their results and a discharge summary.

We scored the service as 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.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. The service had a corporate complaints policy and staff could access this online.

Patients told us they knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care, including how to raise any concerns or issues.

There were 13 complaints in the last 12 months relating to medical care. Different themes emerged, such as procedure related complications and infection related complications. We saw examples of changes made in response to complaints such as, strengthened discharge processes and enhanced infection prevention patient education.

We scored the service as 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 was flexible, convenient and accessible for people with disabilities. People could choose appointment times that suited their needs.

Patients told us they received treatment in a prompt and timely manner and that they did not experience long waits when they arrived for their treatment. Staff told us they planned patients care and treatment in advance, so they did not experience delays in their treatment.

On the day of admission for endoscopy procedures, the order of the list was determined by clinical factors. Priority was based on individual patient needs, including co-morbidities. For example, patients with diabetes were scheduled earlier on the list to minimise the length of time they went without food and medication, helping to support optimal clinical outcomes.

Leaders told us the endoscopy service was open 6 days a week with procedures conducted in the mornings, afternoons and evenings ensuring appointments were available at suitable times for patients.

Physical premises, resources and equipment were accessible including accessible toilets, disabled parking bays and bathrooms. Patients could access interpretation services including British Sign Language and information materials were available in multiple languages upon request.

We scored the service as 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 within the service promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. The service provided accessible ways so that people could provide feedback.

Staff were able to give examples of how they respected the individual wishes of people with protected characteristics, such as disabilities and people with communication or language difficulties. Patients told us their needs and preferences had been assessed and understood by staff. Staff had completed training on equality and diversity and compliance was at 100%. Compliance with the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism was 100%.

Staff told us they did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

We scored the service as 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 their family or carer where they wished.

The oncology service had developed an information pack for patients to share with their children to help explain cancer treatment.

Staff told us they discussed health lifestyles to support recovery following endoscopic procedures. They reinforced key information and gave written advice in line with current best practice.

Staff provided patients with discharge summaries and report findings to take home. They arranged follow up appointments before discharge where required. Staff gave patients clear information at discharge about who to contact and how to raise any concerns.

Patients told us that staff discussed their longer‑term care and treatment plans with them and took their preferences into account. Patients also told us they were given advice and information about how to manage at home following their treatment.