The Hillingdon 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

The service faced challenges affecting the responsiveness of care, particularly in managing patient flow and bed availability. These issues disrupted continuity of care, leading to delays in transferring patients from the Surgical Assessment Unit (SAU) to surgical wards. Additionally, while information was generally provided to patients, the availability of information in different languages and accessible formats was limited, potentially hindering communication for non-English-speaking patients. Some patients also reported that their immediate needs, such as pain management and dietary requirements, were not always addressed promptly, highlighting gaps in meeting individual preferences and expectations.

Despite these, the service demonstrated a strong commitment to person-centred care by involving patients and their families in care planning and decision-making. Multidisciplinary teams, including doctors, nurses, dieticians, and physiotherapists, worked collaboratively to facilitate comprehensive care planning. Clinicians took time to answer patients’ questions, ensuring that they were well-informed about their care. Mechanisms such as the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) and the NHS Friends and Family Test were in place to gather feedback, demonstrating the service’s dedication to listening to and involving people in the improvement of care delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Hillingdon Hospital’s surgery service demonstrated a commitment to person-centred care, ensuring that patients were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients reported understanding their conditions and the options available to them, and they appreciated that their families and close friends were regularly involved in care planning and decision-making processes. This approach helped ensure that care was tailored to meet the specific needs of each patient, promoting a sense of partnership between patients and healthcare providers. The involvement of multidisciplinary teams, including doctors, nurses, dieticians, and physiotherapists, facilitated comprehensive care planning that responded to the individual needs of patients.

The service was attentive to the diverse health and care needs of its patients, aiming to provide joined-up and flexible care. Staff received training in equality and diversity, ensuring that care provision was inclusive and respectful of individual differences.

The service's use of electronic health records enabled seamless communication between different departments and specialities, supporting continuity of care as patients moved between services.

The service made efforts to provide accurate, up-to-date information to patients, helping them understand their care, treatment options, and any changes to their treatment plans. Patients had access to various information leaflets on topics such as patient rights, care processes, and post-operative care. Clinicians were observed taking time to answer patients’ questions and ensuring they understood the information provided.

However, the availability of information in different formats and languages was limited. Although translation services were available upon request, only a few leaflets were provided in languages other than English. This gap could have hindered effective communication and understanding for patients with limited English proficiency, indicating a need for further expansion of multilingual resources.

The service had mechanisms in place to encourage feedback from patients, involving them in decision-making and responding to their concerns. Patients were aware of how to give feedback, including through the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS), and there were various channels for raising complaints. Patients reported feeling comfortable and informed about how to raise concerns. They had multiple channels available for feedback, including PALS, email, telephone, and in-person discussions. The availability of this service across various formats and languages, such as large print and audio, aimed to accommodate patients with different needs, ensuring that all voices were heard.

Staff were knowledgeable about the complaint-handling process and could articulate the steps taken to manage complaints. When concerns or complaints were raised, staff demonstrated a thorough and sensitive approach to handling them. Managers investigated complaints promptly, following the trust's policy, and worked to identify common themes or areas for improvement, with patients and their families actively involved in the investigation process. This ensured transparency and helped build trust between patients and the service.

Staff provided examples of how feedback was used to drive improvements, such as revising patient information leaflets based on patient input to make them more accessible and clearer. Complaints were used to identify broader trends and implement service-wide changes. Lessons learned from complaints were shared with staff across the service to promote continuous improvement. For instance, staff meetings and handovers included discussions on recent complaints, highlighting any actions taken and providing guidance on how to avoid similar issues in the future. This approach demonstrated the service’s commitment to using patient feedback constructively to enhance care delivery and patient satisfaction.

The service used the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback, and results were displayed prominently, showing transparency in how patient feedback was influencing practice and demonstrating an ongoing effort to improve care quality.

Hillingdon Hospital endeavoured to ensure that all patients had equal access to care, support, and treatment, regardless of their background or circumstances. Most services, including the Surgical Assessment Unit, were available 24/7, ensuring accessibility for patients admitted through AE or referred for surgical care.

The service also made adjustments to accommodate patients with specific needs, such as bariatric equipment for those requiring it. However, delays caused by bed shortages and capacity issues affected timely access to appropriate care. For example, the assessment found that some patients had to remain in less suitable areas like the SAU due to the unavailability of surgical beds, highlighting the impact of resource constraints on equitable access.

The service's ability to provide equitable experiences and outcomes was sometimes hampered by systemic issues such as overcrowding, bed shortages, and staffing challenges. These issues could lead to disparities in the quality of care and patient experiences, as evidenced by reports of delayed surgeries and unmet immediate needs.

Leaders and staff were aware of the potential for discrimination and inequality, striving to create a fair and inclusive environment for all patients. Efforts to promote equity included providing interpreter services, making cultural adjustments, and offering various dietary options.

The service demonstrated a proactive approach in supporting patients to plan for life changes and their future care needs. A key initiative included the use of 'blind bookings' in the pre-operative assessment unit, which reserved additional time slots for patients with sensitive diagnoses or complex requirements. This ensured that these patients had the opportunity to engage in thorough discussions with doctors, allowing them to fully understand their treatment options and make informed decisions about their care. This approach highlighted the service's commitment to patient-centred planning and the importance placed on giving patients time to prepare for surgical interventions.

The service also implemented an accessible electronic health record (EHR) system, allowing all staff to view and update patient care plans consistently. This digital integration supported continuity and ensured that patients' needs and preferences were recorded accurately and available to all relevant healthcare teams. This measure was particularly valuable for managing patient care transitions, contributing to a cohesive and comprehensive approach in planning long-term care.

Despite these positive practices, some of the service’s strategic plans for improving the physical environment and capacity of the surgical units remained distant or delayed. For instance, proposals for building new facilities and expanding bed capacity were discussed, yet these initiatives were not imminent. Senior leadership acknowledged the need for updated infrastructure, including plans for relocating elective surgeries to Mount Vernon, but these developments were projected well into the future and had not yet impacted current service delivery. This long-term planning indicated that while the service was preparing for growth and improvement, immediate benefits for patients and staff were not yet visible.