St Anthony's 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.

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 observed staff placing patients at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment wherever possible. Patients told us they felt involved in decision-making and were given the information they needed to make informed choices and provide consent. Staff consulted patients throughout their care.

Staff told us that they considered patients individual needs and circumstances when making decisions about patients care and treatment. They undertook risk assessments, considering factors such as mobility, nutrition, morbidity, hydration when planning care for patients.

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 service considered and understood the diverse health needs and preference of patients, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Patients were able to express their needs, and these were documented on paper and used throughout their stay in the critical care unit and shared information with the local community such as GPs and social services to ensure joined-up, continuity of care and supported choice.

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

Patient information booklets were available and contained information in different languages and formats and complied with the Accessible Information standard and governance information contained information on the confidentiality of patients records and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

There were posters containing information such as falls, patients’ safety, discharge, and how to complain in an easy-read format. Staff ensured that patients could access information on treatments, local services, their rights and how to complain. Patients told us that information was easy to obtain and staff were available to provide clarity. At the time of our assessment, we were unable to observe staff supporting people whose first language was not English or who required alternative methods of communication such as Braille, because no patients with these needs were using the service.

Staff ensured that carers and relatives received regular update on patients’ progress, given that most patients were coming from Plymouth, as per the Plymouth NHS contract with the provider. They ensured that any information was disclosed to family members and carers with the consent of patients, where possible.

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 followed the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) code of practice management for complaints management and escalation, which handles disputes for self-funded patients and those covered by private medical insurance. NHS patients transferred to the hospital reported their complaints through the NHS complaint procedures. A spreadsheet was used as the central point of reference to enable a systemic review of open and closed complaints. At the time of the assessment, 38 complaints were discussed, addressed and closed and 17 remained open and, in the critical unit, there has been 1 complaint in the last 12 months and that was still under investigation.

Patients told us that they did not have any complaint as the service was very good and staff very supportive. They told us that any query was responded to with kindness, dignity and clarity. Should there be any complaint or concerns, they knew how to raise them. Staff told us that patients who raised complaints were protected from discrimination and harassment and could raise complaints anonymously.

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 made the necessary adjustments to ensure that people had access to the critical care service and received the care, treatment and support that met their needs.

There were visible signages to enable patients and relatives to navigate through the hospital and there was a direct access for patients from theatre to the critical care unit. The layout of the service facilitated bed access from theatre. All admission and administrative duties were completed upon admission for surgery.

Policies and guidance, in line with national standards, were in place to ensure that people with protected characteristics could access care, treatment and support when needed

The service had interpreter, visual boards and mental health first aiders services available for people who required communication and emotional support.

There were also provisions for family members who wished to visit their loved ones. Updated information was provided regularly via telephone for those who could not be physically present. Although there was no provision for family members to stay within the hospital, the service made arrangements with nearby hotels to facilitate their stay.

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 and the wider organisation had systems and processes in place to adapt and care for patients who are likely to experience inequalities.

The service had policies and procedures in place to ensure that vulnerable people and those with protected characteristics were not disadvantaged and staff completed their equality, diversity and human right training. The service also made provisions to support people who required reasonable adjustments and communication support. For example, hearing loops were available for people with hearing impairment and interpreter services for people who do not speak English.

Patients told us that they felt very supported and the service monitored and used patients’ information to identify those likely potentially to experience inequalities and patient feedback were also used to collect information about equitable care and treatment.

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.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment and their future, including important life changes. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Patients were involved and included in planning for future treatment and staff ensured that healthcare professionals and relevant bodies were involved in the discussions, especially for patients with complex needs such as those who required extra support as part of their recovery process and care after discharge from the hospital.

Staff discussed important life changes resulting from surgery in a dignified and sensitive way with patients, relatives or carers and adapted the care plan accordingly.

When patients who were rapidly deteriorating were identified, staff told us they were able to discuss the next step and what was important in a dignified and sensitive way with families or carers.