The Winterbourne 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.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

An online outpatient booking process meant patients could arrange appointments at times that met their needs and according to availability of the consultants. Feedback from patients in the Friends and Family Test results demonstrated satisfaction with the ease and simplicity of booking an appointment.

Processes were in place and followed by staff to ensure they had information about patients’ specific needs, which meant reasonable adjustments could be made to support the delivery of person centred care.

Staff received training to give them the skills to support people with a learning disability and autism. As part of staff mandatory training, they were required to complete training about learning disability and autism appropriate to their role. Data provided by the service showed all staff had received this training.

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 understood the demographics of the local area and developed services, including the outpatient service, to meet the needs of the local population.

The service now ensured processes were followed to ensure clinic letters were shared electronically with both patients and their GPs. This enabled, where required, ongoing care and treatment of patients in the community.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were mostly tailored to individual needs.

The service provided a range of leaflets for patients that provided advice and guidance about their care and treatment at the hospital. For patients self-funding their care and treatment, information was available about the costs of treatments.

Detail about how to make appointments, raise concerns, complaints or compliments were detailed on the providers website.

Leaflets about the hospital site, and care and treatment could be translated into different languages. However, the provider website, which included information about Winterbourne Hospital did not have the facility to translate the information into different languages.

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.

Detail about how to give feedback about care and treatment was detailed on the trust website. This included compliments, concerns, and complaints feedback processes.

In the 12 months preceding the inspection, the outpatient department had received 6 complaints about the service, with all of them resolved within the hospital timescales for responding to complaints. Themes from the complaints included a lack of transparency around invoicing for outpatients’ appointment, which was centred around the fact the consultants invoiced patients separately for their appointment and tests and procedures were invoiced from the hospital. Leaders were currently considering how this process could be improved. Other areas of improvement in response to patient complaints included the improved oversight and monitoring of patients in the reception/waiting area.

Review of complaints and the services responses to patient complaints showed the service provided answers to questions, an explanation of actions they were taking to make improvements and gave an apology to the patient.

Feedback from patients in the Friends and Family Test results demonstrated staff involved in decisions about their care, “The doctor and I explored a range of treatment options,” and “[gave]me time to decide on the options.”

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.

Patients we spoke with commented positively about how quickly they could access appointments and treatment. This was for both NHS patients and private patients whether self-funding or funded by insurance. This was replicated in feedback from patients in the Friends and Family Test

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients to ensure they could access the service. For example, patients with neurodiverse conditions who struggled with sensory overload, a quiet waiting area was provided in one of the consultation rooms. Hearing loop facilities were available for those who required it.

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.

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.

All staff had completed training about equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Staff demonstrated in conversations a good understanding about meeting people’s diverse needs. They gave examples where they made reasonable adjustments so patients had equitable experiences.

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.

Staff supported patients to make plans about their future in relation to treatment options and what to expect following treatment. Feedback from patients, including those in the Friends and Family Test results demonstrated clinicians gave patients information about treatment options and what to expect following treatment. This meant patients could make informed choices and plans.