Central Middlesex 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.This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 43 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

Patients, their relatives and carers, told us they felt confident that clinical staff had assessed their individual needs, and these were understood. For example, a patient with long term respiratory problems felt staff listened to her when she described previous treatment that had worked well for her, which she felt would be a good treatment choice now.

People were encouraged to use a hospital passport ,which helped inform hospital staff about the needs of the patient with a learning disability and how to support them.

Multidisciplinary teams reviewed and planned care for complex patients and people who attended the department often. This was in line with The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM), Best Practice Guideline, Delivering Interventions and Services for High Intensity Use Frequent March 2024.

The environment of the paediatric waiting area was child friendly. The room was large enough to park children’s buggies to allow children to rest if needed.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

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

Staff were aware of the diversity of the local population and the people they treated and understood how to access communication support while considering cultural and religious needs. The department always had access to a translation line, which included British Sign Language, and there was also the option to request face-to-face interpreters. We saw posters advertising the translation service in each consultation room. Although not displayed in the waiting room, staff had access to patient information leaflets available in multiple languages.

Patients we spoke with told us they had been given clear information from staff regarding their treatment, including any follow-up procedures or appointments that might be needed. Staff also explained the pathway through the department. Reception staff informed people of the approximate wait timing and would keep people in the waiting room informed if the waiting time was increasing. However, there were no electronic screens or signage available for people to view the most up-to-date wait times, nor was this information provided in different languages. Since the assessment, the trust has told us that television screens will be installed in November 2025 to display real-time waiting times and provide information in multiple languages.

Discharge letters were sent electronically to GPs and other professionals if required, for example to community nursing teams. The London Care Record meant different professionals could see key information about patients to ensure their care was planned and transition between services was managed. Patient records were held on a secure electronic patient record system which was accessed by staff using individual log in details.

We noted 100% of staff had received General Data Protection Regulation training (GDPR). This training ensured staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities when handling personally identifiable data.

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.

Patients, their families and carers felt staff listened to them and cared. The staff were friendly and communicated well with people. People were able to provide feedback about their experiences with the service through patient surveys. Each member of staff was asked to share the surveys and obtain feedback from 10 people each shift. We saw this feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Signs in reception signposted people on how they could make a formal complaint if needed. The service had received no formal complaints for the previous 12 months.

All staff reported that they felt able to raise concerns with leaders if needed, and that their concerns would be listened to and acted upon. Staff felt safe to speak up without fear of negative consequences and gave examples of changes that had been made following their input. For example, staff told us about changes to the stock ordering process, which had helped ensure supplies were more readily available and reduced delays in patient care.

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

Patients had equal access to care, treatment and support. The service considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to ensure patient’s individual needs could be met. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, having a quiet room available for those with sensory concerns, and addressing communication barriers. The premises were purpose built and fully accessible with appropriate facilities and equipment to support people who were physically disabled.

Patients could access services, and care was managed to take account of people’s needs, including those with urgent needs. Waiting times for both triage and consultation were managed appropriately. Patients were kept informed of any disruption to their care.

The service consistently met the national emergency waiting time outcomes. Over the past 12 months over 95% of patients were seen and discharged or care transferred to other facilities within 4 hours, and 97.45 % of patients were triaged within 15 minutes of arrival. The service had an escalation policy in place so that in times of busy periods, all staff ensured people were seen within these times.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.