Woodthorpe 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 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.

At our last inspection 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.

Score: 3

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.

All patients told us that they felt they care was person-centred and staff would respond to any changes in peoples need. Care plans focused on the procedure or surgery undertaken. During the preoperative stage of the process we observed staff explore people’s needs, including any additional changes since the referral.

Score: 3

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 had good relationships with other local healthcare providers which helped to maintain communication and ensure joined up care for patients.

If a referred patient was unable to receive surgery, the patient was not booked in prior to this decision and the appropriate provider to continue care was contacted promptly.

Staff we spoke demonstrated an understanding of some of the diverse needs of the people receiving care.

Score: 3

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

Patients were provided with appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information at all stages of the procedure. Staff had access to leaflets on procedures and any associated conditions and risks which were provided to patients. Patients told us communication from staff was appropriate and they felt well informed.

The service communicated fees appropriately to self-funded private patients.

Staff at the service had access to translation and interpretation services if they were required.

Score: 3

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

None of the patients we spoke with had made a complaint, but they felt they had been provided with sufficient information regarding the process verbally alongside a leaflet that is provided as standard. Patients also told us they felt they would raise any concerns with staff and felt they would be listened to.

Staff told us they tried to deal with any concerns and issues immediately, however, If a complaint was made formally, it was appropriately investigated through the hospitals process.

Staff involved patients in decisions around their care through all stages of the process, from the initial appointment through to being cared for post-procedure.

Score: 3

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

As mentioned previously in another area of the report, the service had clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, if a patient had some risk factors, they would be discussed at a complex case meeting to make a final decision. Patients were not booked in for any procedures until it was deemed safe to do so. This applied to all patients and meant that procedures were not booked in unnecessarily. If patient could not undergo a procedure at this hospital, they were referred to the hospital or back to the GP.

People were able to choose appointment times to suit them.

The hospital was accessible for people with disabilities.

Score: 3

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

As mentioned previously in another area of the report, the service monitored outcome data for procedures closely to ensure equity in experience and outcomes. The service had no issues in relation to inequality in experiences and outcomes.

Score: 3

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

End of life care was not a routine provision and was not reviewed during the assessment of the service.

When discussing procedures the future was always considered, whether it was the impact immediately post-procedure with recovery or the long-term future after this.