Hendon 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 patients 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 people’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 usually 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 patients’ needs.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. The service had a dementia box available on the ward. This contained equipment and information suitable for patients who had dementia. Staff told us that work was being done by external organisations to improve the experience of patients who had dementia, to make the wards more dementia friendly.

The service used hospital passports for patients with learning disabilities and/or autism coming into the hospital, which all medical and nursing staff were required to look at before any interventions with the patient. The hospital passports contained areas such as the patient's likes, dislikes and required reasonable adjustments and important things staff needed to know for the patient’s hospital admissions. Staff were required to update any areas of the hospital passport and needed to review the content of this document regularly.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. The service used a telephone interpretation service for patients whose first language was not English, which staff had on display and had details of how to use the translation service. There was also the option of face-to-face interpreters being available for patients who required this. Additionally, the same service was used to provide services in British Sign Language if patients required this.

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, and meals and snacks were available to patients who had different religious needs, for example halal and kosher options.

As per Royal College guidelines private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or partially), they were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions of the services to be provided, including the amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible this was always provided in writing before the commencement of the services.

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 planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. The service saw and treated a diverse range of patients from all backgrounds and cultures, and the service understood their health and care needs. Staff and leaders understood the health and social care needs of their local communities. Leaders we spoke to said, most patients came via the local arrangements of referrals by the NHS to the hospital for treatment. Leaders told us that approximately 68% of patients they treated were NHS referrals. The remaining patients were either self-funded or had medical insurance.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements. This was done by the service’s bookings team.

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

A range of information was available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health. The service provided all patients with a welcome guide to the hospital, known as a ‘Patient Passport’, and this outlined what to expect from the initial consultation and the next stages of the patient’s journey. This included treatment and recovery. This booklet was written in clear language and in a way that the patient could understand easily. The service provided key information to patients in line with accessible information standards.

We saw posters on display in the wards in alternative languages regarding use of chaperones for consultations, examinations and procedures.

There was up-to-date information available on the service’s website regarding the service’s facilities, fixed price treatment packages, contact numbers, patient satisfaction scores and comprehensive information about the various departments and surgical treatments available at the service. This helped patients make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Patients could easily book an appointment on the service’s website with a consultant. There was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

The service had 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.

Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. People, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately

The service gave patients information on how to complain or raise concerns. There was a complaints policy, which was in date. The policy had details of the Independent Healthcare Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS), a third-party organisation where self-pay/insured patients could escalate their complaints if they remained dissatisfied with the service’s response. This was in line with best practice for the escalation process of complaints in independent healthcare. Patients receiving NHS funded treatment had the option of escalating their complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsmen (PHSO) if they remained dissatisfied with the service’s response. The service told us that no complaints had been referred to ISCAS or the PHSO in the last 12 months.

The service had received a total of 1 complaint in the last 12 months. This was in relation to a cancelled surgical procedure. We saw evidence from the service that they had carried out a thorough investigation following the patient’s complaint. Lessons learned included the need for improved communication and processes, and the service apologised to the patient and gave them a full explanation following the investigation into the concerns raised from the complaint. We saw evidence that all stages of the service’s management of complaints process had been followed, including acknowledgement, investigation, full response letter to the patient and outcome, and staff responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy.

The service actively encouraged feedback through QR code systems, online reviews, and patient satisfaction surveys.

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. Where there were large waiting lists, these were monitored and reduced over time. The service used a centralised appointment system for patients referred through an electronic referral service (eRS) and another CHG hospital team booked the initial consultation appointment. Once the consultant and patient agreed the patient was a candidate for surgery, the hospital booking team contacted the patient and offered them 2 dates for surgery and was flexible with date planning. Confirmation appointment letters were sent to patients soon after they were booked in for surgery, with staff from the bookings team contacting patients via telephone 48 hours before surgery to confirm attendance.

Managers monitored waiting times, where this was necessary and made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets.

The hospital staff managed the bed occupancy and patient flow well, with regular monitoring by staff on the wards of bed occupancy rates and daily staff huddle meetings taking place to manage patient flow.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and within national targets and guidance. The service had reported a total of 51 cancelled operations in the last 12 months, due to various reasons including the patient being unwell on the day of the procedure. These cancellations occurred on the day of the surgery that was scheduled to take place.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Staff planned patients’ discharge carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs. Staff liaised with GP’s and community services when patients had complex needs.

The service considered the needs of patients in the local community, including those from protected characteristics such as disability by ensuring the service was easily accessible with step-free access. We saw information on display on noticeboards on the wards about help and support being available to patients who had additional communication needs. This included patients who required information in large print, hearing loop facilities, and BSL. There was also information available for patients who needed to request services in alternative languages and any other requirements unique to the individual, such as easy read formats. If patients had any individual needs, they notified the clinic in advance so that the clinic was made aware and so that delays in the clinic were mitigated.

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 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. For example, the service participated in Patient-Led Assessments of the Care Environment (PLACE) audits. We saw information from the audit which showed that the service was taking action to review current menu formats, as patient feedback received was that the menus on the wards were “too wordy”. Leaders therefore took action to review the menu format and explore the production of easy-read menus with pictures, icons and simplified text, and had escalated this to the appropriate supplier for future implementation.

Discharge arrangements optimised the outcomes for all patients, including those with protected characteristics. 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.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer if they wished.

Staff discussed health lifestyles for going home and recovery from the patient's operation. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice.

Discharge summaries were given to the patients to take home and for their GP. Follow up appointments were made before patients were discharged.