Woodthorpe Hospital

Ratings - Outpatients

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Good

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

Our view of the service

We carried out this comprehensive assessment on 11 March 2025. We previously inspected outpatients jointly with diagnostic imaging so we cannot compare our new ratings directly with previous ratings. The assessment was undertaken due to the length of time since the previous assessment of the service, which had been carried out using our previous inspection methodology. At this assessment we assessed all quality statements in all key questions under our Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and this has resulted in new ratings. The findings were as follows:

Safe:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. People were protected and kept safe. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff involved people in planning any changes.

Effective:

People were active partners in the assessments of their needs. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. The hospital had policies and care pathways in place that were in line with national guidance, for example, the service had a policy on mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards however, staff were not always knowledgeable about these as they told us it was very unusual for them to undertake mental capacity assessments

The service completed a range of audits, including medical records, patient consent and pre-operative assessments

Caring:

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and care givers.

Staff treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were supported to do so.

Responsive:

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people, and the communities served. It also worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care.

People were involved in decisions about their care. Staff talked with patients, families and care givers in a way they could understand and ensured they were full partners in their treatment and care.

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback.

Well-led:

Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff.

However,staff we spoke with were uncertain about if there were Freedom to Speak up Guardians, (FTSUG) and if they were the same as mental health first aiders.

People's experience of this service

Patients, families and care givers provided positive feedback throughout our assessment.  They told us the service respected their confidentiality and dignity, whilst providing effective and person centred care and treatment.

Patients told us there was enough staff  who spoke with them in a way they could understand during all stages of their  treatment.