You are here

Archived: Dorking Community Hospital Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 10 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Overall rating for this core service

Overall, this core service was rated as good. We found the Dorking Community Hospital was good for safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

We inspected the regulated activities of diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of diseases, disorders and injuries.

The provider, Central Surrey Health has been established as a social enterprise and the staff working for this organisation are co-owners and are referred to as such throughout the report.

During our inspection we spoke with nine patients who were using the service and two of their relatives. We spoke with 21 co-owners including nurses, doctors, and therapy and administrative staff.

Our findings were as follows

  • Systems to report incidents were used effectively and, when indicated, practice was changed.

  • Generally, patients received their medicines safely and there was good governance of medicines although some aspects of medicines management needed improvement.

  • Facilities were well maintained and there were good infection prevention and control practices which staff understood.

  • There were systems for assessing and mitigating risks and initiatives were taken to keep patients safe within the hospital.

  • Care was provided in line with national best practice guidance. A rolling programme of local audits ensured standards of care were maintained. Patient outcomes were monitored.

  • There was a continual focus on professional development and clinical competence of co-owners and their performance was appraised.

  • There was good multidisciplinary working with access to specialist services when required. The team worked cohesively together.

  • Patients were very positive about their experience. They were treated with kindness, respect and dignity and were included in decisions relating to their care and treatment.

  • Services were planned and delivered to meet individual needs and which ensured a focus on rehabilitation in an environment that was appropriate.

  • There was a shared vision and philosophy of care in the service which supported a multi-disciplinary approach with strong co-ownership engagement. Senior leaders were visible and co-owners were positive about the leadership structure.

However we also found:

  • The ward environment could be made more dementia friendly.

  • The temperature of rooms where medicines were stored were not monitored.

Inspection carried out on 17 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our inspection in November 2013 we found that the provider had not ensured there were effective systems in place that reduced the risk and spread of infection.

We carried out this follow up inspection to check that the provider had taken the necessary steps which ensured that processes had been put in place in relation to infection control. During our visit we spoke to staff, reviewed evidence given to us by the provider and checked that equipment was clean and properly labelled.

Inspection carried out on 13 November 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with eight patients, six members of staff and two relatives. We also collected eight responses to a patient questionnaire we handed to patients who attended the outpatient physiotherapy department. We made observations throughout our visit.

From survey results and talking with patients, people said that they were treated with respect and dignity. People told us "They treat you like a human being" and "They speak to you respectfully."

We saw that staff supported patients to eat their meals and records were made of patients� food and fluid intake when needed. The patients that we spoke with told us that they enjoyed the food. One patient told us �Generally excellent.�

During our inspection we found that staff had an understanding of infection controls and why they were necessary. However, we saw that the provider had not ensured there were effective systems in place with regard to the cleaning of equipment.

We found that there were suitable amounts of qualified staff that met the needs of people who used the service.

We saw that the service had a complaints system which was made available to patients, their relatives and patients who attended the outpatient physiotherapy department.