• Hospice service

South Bucks Hospice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Butterfly House, Kingswood Park, High Wycombe, HP13 6GR (01494) 552750

Provided and run by:
South Bucks Hospice

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 17 August 2022

South Bucks Hospice is a day hospice supporting patients aged 18 and over in South Buckinghamshire living with life-limiting or life threatening illness through the provision of specialist palliative care on an outpatient basis. They also support the families and carers of patients and those bereaved as a result of cancer, or a life-limiting illness, or Covid-19.

The hospice supported people at any stage in their diagnosis to adapt physically, psychologically, socially and emotionally to their condition, to keep well and to cope with any health and care needs at home, wherever possible. The support offered could start at any stage of illness including as soon as an illness had been diagnosed and whilst it may still be curative.

At South Bucks Hospice, palliative care was delivered by a multidisciplinary team of experts, such as nurses and counsellors. They provided support to individuals through:

  • Pain and symptom management
  • Lymphoedema management
  • Counselling
  • Physiotherapy
  • Complementary therapy
  • A wide range of support groups
  • Practical support, advice and guidance e.g. housing and benefit application support
  • Advance care planning
  • Bereavement support
  • Spiritual care

They also signposted patients to other appropriate services who could help with their care and wellbeing.

The hospice, at the time of the inspection, supported around 550 people per year, of which approximately 65% had a cancer diagnosis.

The hospice has been registered with the CQC since November 2020 to provide the regulated activity:-

  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The service had a registered manager, who had been the registered manager since January 2022. This was South Bucks Hospice first inspection.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 17 August 2022

The location had not previously been inspected. We rated it as good because:

  • 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. The service managed safety incidents reasonably well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected some safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients enough to eat and drink. Managers had started to monitor the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
  • 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 carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well and had started to use 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 were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • Some areas of the clinical areas were still carpeted which posed an increased infection risk.
  • Not all consumables were in date and some were found with patient details displayed.
  • Not all patient records were completed fully.
  • Not all areas of clinical governance were clear.