You are here

Airedale General Hospital Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 April 2011
Date of Publication: 2 June 2011
Dignity and Nutrition Report published 2 June 2011 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

Staff treat patients respectfully and ensure that they are involved in decisions about their care where this is possible. Patients told us that all of the staff were pleasant and respectful; they felt staff listened and responded to their needs in a timely manner. During our visit we saw positive evidence of this and the staff we spoke to had an understanding of the importance of respecting and involving people who use the trust's services.

User experience

Patient's we spoke with were very positive about their experiences of care and treatment. Patients stated that they were kept informed and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment options. Patients told us that all of the staff were pleasant and respectful; they felt staff listened and responded to their needs in a timely manner. Example comments included I have observed good responses from staff to other more dependent patient's. One person said 'everything fine, things are explained' when asked do staff explain and ask if it's alright before they help you. Another person commented that staff are 'very reassuring, explain what is going to happen, they answer questions when asked'.

Other evidence

During our visit we observed staff respecting the privacy and dignity of patients while talking to them and helping them in their daily activities. Staff adjusted the volume of their voice to accommodate the individual needs of each patient. We saw curtains being drawn around beds and side room doors closed on each occasion where care interventions were being carried out.

Patients were accommodated in same sex bays and single rooms and staff took care to knock prior to entering single rooms. Individual bedside lockers, longer cupboards for hanging clothes and access to toilet and washing facilities, including single sex facilities were available. Information we hold about the trust from the Patient Environment Action Team (PEAT) showed Airedale NHS Foundation Trust as much better than expected for the hospital environment being conducive to patient privacy. The inpatient survey data also showed the trust as much better than expected in relation to single sex accommodation and bathroom areas.

Bespoke information leaflets were provided on admission and available on each ward which contained information on the ward and hospitals facilities, for example chaplain services, visiting hours and discharge planning. Staff addressed each patient by name and we saw them frequently engaging the patients by asking them if they were comfortable and whether they needed anything. We also saw staff actively engaging with visitors about the care of their relative.

Call bells were within easy reach and audible, one patient had been provided with a hand bell due to their electronic call bell being out of reach. We saw that staff responded to calls in a timely manner and the majority of patients with higher dependency were being cared for in bed. A number were being supported with pressure air relieving mattresses, side rails in accordance with their risk assessments and one low bed was in use due to falls risks. There was sufficient staff on duty to meet this dependency.

Most patients were satisfied that the care and treatment options available to them had been adequately explained. We observed doctors visiting and interacting with patients and time was being taken to explain progress on their treatment, while maintaining their privacy. The inpatient survey which collects data from patients across the trust, also found that a high proportion of patients felt they had enough information about the risks and benefits of care and treatment. However our review of four multi disciplinary care plans showed that these aspects were not always being recorded consistently in every case.

The trust has a range of ways of monitoring whether patients are involved and respected for example;

One of the wards was currently trialling a new scheme, which serves to highlight the special needs of patients whose memory is permanently affected by dementia referred to as the 'butterfly scheme'. The focus of the scheme is on the needs and views of people who use services, and it provides staff with simple, practical guidance towards meeting the needs of these patients by displaying a butterfly symbol (with consent). This symbol prompts staff to follow a simple five point plan, known as the REACH response: Remind, Explain, Arrange, Check, History. We saw evidence of staff following this plan during our visit and staff told us that they had received local bespoke training on this scheme. As part of supporting evidence the trust has submitted details of the background, current and future aims of this scheme.

The trust has introduced a programme of monthly dementia audits which commenced in February 2011. The focus of these audits is on the quality of care and patient experience with particular emphasis on hygiene needs; nutrition and hydration; safety; empathy and communication; compassion and physical comfort (pain control). The audit team which are mainly senior nursing staff from across the trust aims to meet a member of the patient's family and or carer to ascertain