Mount Vernon 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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were consistently 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.

People who used services and those close to them (including carers and dependants) were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it was centred around them and their needs.

People understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided.

People could receive the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. The service offered 30 minutes appointments which provided sufficient time for patient assessment and treatment. Patients could complete x-rays where required and receive relevant treatment or referral to appropriate healthcare providers.

People received care and treatment from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities.

There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were flexible and joined-up. Information was appropriately shared with community teams including GPs and specialist teams. Staff could access wider information about patient health records from the regional health service.

People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. The service had a waiting area with sufficient seating arrangements. Patients in the waiting area had access to various information posted about smoking cessation, chaperone services, ailments and symptoms.

Delivering and co-ordinating services considered the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care. The unit was easily accessible by people on wheelchairs and translation services were available for patients if required.

The service shared the location with other health care providers. Visitors to the location often struggled to find the UCC. Staff informed us the trust could make improvements regarding signage around the location.

People could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they can understand and which meets their communication needs. People who used the service, their family, friends, and carers were provided with information that was accessible, safe and secure and supported their rights and choices. People were provided with relevant information about their ailment and follow up care and treatment as required.

People’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. These needs were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. The service used a hospital communication book to facilitate conversations.

People could expect information to be tailored to individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, interpreting and translating for people who do not speak English as a first language and for Deaf people who use British Sign Language (BSL). People who have difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. Interpretation and translation services were available 24/7 by the trust, including face to face, telephone and video interpreting, BSL included.

People knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. People, their family, friends and other carers felt confident that if they complain, they will be taken seriously and treated compassionately. Patients were given the opportunity to provide feedback about the service. Information was collected either electronically or in person.

The UCC carried out patient satisfaction survey in order to obtain feedback about its services. Patient feedback was very positive, for example 97% of patients felt that the service was good in July 2024.

There had been no complaints for the urgent Care Nurse Practitioner service over the last 12 months. Although there had been no complaints received about the service, there had been some feedback via Patient Advice and Liaison Services. One was a thank you for telephone advice and the other was a query regarding information on the discharge summary. This related to information added during the automated discharge process regarding place of attendance. This was resolved by adjusting the wording in the electronic system.

The Trust had a dedicated Learning Disability (LD) Nurse whose role was to support staff to care for patients with a learning disability and to support patients with a LD, through support with assessments, completion of the health passport, and enable reasonable adjustments for patients during their stay at the hospital, and supporting when required with ongoing referrals. The Learning Disability Nurse supported the staff training sessions at staff induction, as a part of the safeguarding training and with any additional training requests.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

People could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises. Patients and their families could access care and treatment promptly. All patients we spoke to were positive about the timeliness of their care and treatment. For example, one family had contacted the service at 8.30am on the first day of our inspection. They got an appointment at 9.30am and they were on their way out by 10.05 having seen a nurse practitioner, had an x-ray done and reviewed by staff, with a dressing and sling.

The average length of stay within the department was 46 minutes in May, 52 minutes in June and 49 minutes in July. Between August 2023 and July 2024, 4,184 children were seen at UCC and 12,724 adults.

People could access services when they needed to, without physical or digital barriers. The majority of patients were self-referrals to the service. Between May and July 95.94% of patients self-referred, 1.39% were via ambulance and 2.42% were via 111 service. Physical premises and equipment were accessible. Wheelchairs were available for use if required. People were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. Patients on wheelchairs could easily navigate around the unit via the wide access entrance and corridors.

Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. When there were barriers, they were removed. The service was measured against the national four-hour standard from arrival to discharge. The performance was 100% on target. This performance supported the appointment structure to enable the service to manage demand and capacity.

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers, delays and protected their rights. The service was opened 364 days a year, 0800-2000 hours. The organisation utilised and contracted accessible specialists to assist with site mapping. An online wayfinding system suitable for everyone with accessible needs was developed.

All clinicians were expected to give patients clear guidance at the point of discharge for where to seek help and or follow up should they need it. For the majority of patients this was with their own GP. Whilst a minority were invited back to the service for follow up, the majority of onward referrals at a local London NHS provider were to services such as:

• Burns unit
• Plastics unit,
• Maxillo-facial and ENT unit,
• Orthopaedics/medics/surgeons

Patients not requiring urgent care were referred to local virtual fracture clinics and plastic services outpatient appointments.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and treatment. Staff referred patients to specialist services for ongoing care or follow up where necessary. Relevant information about patient’s care and treatment was shared with GPs.