You are here

Royal Bournemouth Hospital Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 20-22 & 26 October 2015 4 & 9 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Royal Bournemouth Hospital is the larger of two hospitals provided by The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The trust gained foundation status in 2005 and provides services, to a population of 550,000 in the Dorset, New Forest and south Wiltshire areas, which rises in the summer months due to an influx of visitors to the area.

We inspected the trust and Royal Bournemouth Hospital as part of our comprehensive inspection programme.

The Royal Bournemouth Hospital has approximately 600 inpatient beds and 123 day case beds. The hospital provides urgent and emergency care, medical care, surgery, critical care, end of life care, outpatient and diagnostic services. There is a limited maternity and gynaecology service, including a three bedded birthing unit and community midwife service. The children and young person’s service is limited to eye surgery and outpatients. The main centre for obstetrics and gynaecology and paediatric services is at a nearby NHS hospital in Poole.

We inspected eight core services at the hospital: urgent and emergency care, medical care, surgery, critical care, maternity and gynaecology, children and young people, end of life care, outpatient and diagnostic services. Detailed findings on children’s outpatient dermatology service is also included in this location report under children and young people’s core service.

We carried out an announced inspection visit to the hospital 20 -22 October 2015 and additional unannounced inspection visits 27 October, 4 and 9 November 2015. The inspection team included CQC managers, inspectors, and analysts. Doctors, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, senior NHS managers and ‘experts by experience’ were also part of the team.

We rated Royal Bournemouth Hospital as ‘requires improvement ’ overall and requires improvement for providing safe, effective, responsive and well led care. We rated urgent and emergency care, medical care, maternity and gynaecology services as requires improvement overall. We rated caring overall as good across most services and outstanding in children and young people services,  but as requires improvement in medical and older people services. We found surgery, critical care, services for children and young people, end of life care and outpatient and diagnostic imaging services were good overall.

Our key findings were as follows:

Are services safe?

  • Staff were encouraged to report incidents. However, this process was not embedded in all areas. Some staff did not always receive direct feedback. There was investigation and learning to improve the safety of services.
  • The rate of incidents (NRLS) per 100 admissions was below the England average with 98% of incidents being low or no harm incidents. There were 47 serious incidents in the 12 months to April 2015, of which four were Never Events. The rate of serious incidents was below the median of all trusts (2013/14). The majority of serious incidents were pressure ulcers and falls. In October 2015, the trust was at 91% for harm free care and not meeting its own targets (95%).
  • The initial clinical assessment of emergency patients arriving at the emergency department during the day was timely within the national standard of 15 minutes. However, at night the assessment was not timely or appropriately performed and this put some patients at risk.
  • Patients were assessed and monitored by nursing staff using electronic hand held devices. However, some staff did not always complete risk assessments in a timely and effective manner whilst getting used to the new nurse electronic risk assessment process.
  • The early warning score system needed to be used more consistently for the escalation of patients whose condition might deteriorate.
  • In some operating theatres, staff did not follow the five steps for surgical safety consistently or accurately, to minimise the risks of patient harm.
  • There was not an up-to-date protocol to remove a collapsed woman from a birthing pool in the event of unforeseen complications during labour or birth. Staff were not consistently able to describe emergency procedures in the birth centre.
  • Medicines were not consistently managed safely across the hospital. In some areas medicines were not stored securely, or stored safely at correct temperatures. Staff did not always follow trust policy when administering medication or destroying controlled drugs.
  • Staff generally adhered to infection control procedures, but there were some lapses in hand hygiene and some practices did not fully support effective infection control and prevention.
  • Some clinical areas such as emergency department and critical care unit were cramped. The corridor between Derwent Suite and the main hospital, used for transfers, was not suitable for patients. Most wards and clinical areas were clean but we found dust and cobwebs in some operating theatres.
  • Equipment was checked and stored appropriately in most areas but this needed to improve in the emergency department, critical care and some medical and surgical wards, specifically for emergency and transfer equipment.
  • Overall, staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and children
  • More staff needed to complete mandatory training, compliance was below the trust target in most areas.
  • Although there had been recruitment of nursing staff, vacancy levels were still high on some wards, and there was evidence that requests for additional staff to provide cover were not always met. On occasions there was a lack of consideration of the skill mix when agency and bank staff were covering vacant shifts. Wards that had a high number of temporary staff on duty did not have sufficient numbers of permanent staff to provide guidance to the temporary staff about meeting patient individual needs in a safe manner.
  • There was appropriate medical staffing levels in most areas, although consultants in emergency departments were not present in the department for 16 hours a day as recommended by the Royal College of Emergency medicine. The critical care unit was left without medical cover after 11pm if the one junior doctor was called for an emergency elsewhere.
  • In diagnostic imaging, staff were confident in reporting ionised radiation medical exposure (IR(ME)R) incidents and followed procedures to report incidents to the radiation protection team and the Care Quality Commission.
  • Senior clinical staff were aware of the Duty of Candour regulation and the importance of being open and transparent with patients and families. The considerations and documentation around this regulation needed to be happen in sexual health services, on one occasion.
  • The majority of do not attempt cardio pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) forms had been appropriate completed.

Are services effective?

  • Mortality rates in the trust were within expected range. Mortality rates had improved (downward trend) over the last 18 months. There was no difference between weekend and weekday mortality rates. Seven day services in emergency medicine, acute medicine gastroenterology, cardiology, and critical care supported this positive trend
  • The treatment and care provided in most services took account of current evidence-based guidelines. However, evidence-based guidelines for the care and treatment of patients in the emergency department were not always followed.
  • The end of life care services had introduced personalised care plan for the last days of life (PCPDL). Wards we visited were aware of this documentation which was a replacement following the national withdrawal of the Liverpool Care Pathway in July 2014. The trust was piloting AMBER Care Bundle on some wards.
  • Most services participated in national and local audits which showed improving and good outcomes for patients. Emergency care patient outcomes varied and the results of audits were not always used to improve treatment techniques. The midwifery service did not collect information on patient outcomes and there was no programme of audits in place.
  • Pain relief, drinks and food were not always given in a timely manner in the emergency department. Patients received good pain relief and nutrition across all other services.
  • Most patients had access to services seven days a week and were cared for by a multi-disciplinary team working in a co-ordinated way. However the allocation of multidisciplinary support to the critical care unit, including pharmacy and physiotherapy, was lower that recommended. The wider multidisciplinary team did not attend the consultant led ward round on the unit.
  • The critical care unit was working with the Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation (SNODs)  to improve organ donation rate.
  • There was a low staff appraisal rate following the introduction of a new system, we found its use was improving and most staff completed training relevant to their roles. There was a comprehensive training programme for medical staff but little evidence of nursing staff competency training in the emergency department. Not all staff had access to clinical supervision
  • Access to information was mostly effective. In some services patient information was held in a variety of formats which meant it could sometimes be difficult to use and time consuming to find. Electronic patient records were recently implemented in outpatient clinics which staff were using. However, this was accompanied by increases in administrative time and difficulty in finding some records which did have an impact on timeliness of information access and potential for risks to patients. The trust had a plan to address staff concerns around this.
  • Staff followed consent procedures and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which ensures that decisions are made in patients’ best interests.
  • Children and young people were consented appropriately and correctly.

Are services caring?

  • Across the hospital we found staff worked hard to ensure that patients were treated with dignity and respect, despite the challenges sometimes presented by the environment. However in medical and older people services, patients did not always receive care in a way that respected their privacy and dignity.
  • Patients were asked for their views and response rates were high, with a high proportion of patients recommending care and treatment.
  • Patients told us, and we observed, that staff were kind and compassionate, putting the patient at the centre of care.
  • Patients, relatives and families were kept informed of plans for care and treatment. They told us they felt involved in the decision-making process and had been given clear information about treatment options.
  • Patients and their families were supported by staff emotionally to reduce anxiety and concern. There was also support for carers, family and friends for example, from the chaplaincy, bereavement services for patients having end of live care, and counselling support where required.

Are services responsive?

  • Bed occupancy in Royal Bournemouth Hospital range between 90-95%. This was consistently above the England average. It is generally accepted that at 85% level, bed occupancy can start to affect the quality of care provided to patients, and the orderly running of the hospital.
  • Performance in meeting national emergency access target for 95% of patients to be admitted, transferred or discharged within 4 hours varied through the year. The target was not met for 36 of the 52 weeks to March 2015. The trust had achieved the target (95.3%) July-September 2015.
  • A lack of available beds in the hospital had resulted in delays in treatment for patients brought by ambulance and meant the emergency department was often full and this impacted on patient privacy.
  • The number of ambulances waiting more than an hour to hand over patients had reduced significantly since the introduction of a rapid assessment and treatment area (BREATH) but still averaged four per month.
  • There were long delays for patients with fractured hips to be transferred to Poole Hospital that treated trauma patients. The trust was taking action to introduce a formal pathway.
  • The acute medical unit (AMU) and Treatment Investigation Unit (TIU) had been set up to manage the increasing pressures on beds due to an increasing demand.
  • There were 55 medical outliers at the time of inspection. Their patients were appropriately assessed and followed by a team of medical consultant and junior doctors.
  • The hospital performed above the England national average for the referral to treatment standards for patients to wait less than 18 weeks (May to July 2015). Previously, it had not met this standard on any of the 12 months to April 2015.
  • Access to critical care beds within four hours was similar to comparable units. There were low rates of surgery cancellation due to lack of critical care beds. There was a higher than average number of delayed discharges, which resulted in mixed sex breaches, sometimes across several days. The service was performing better than similar services in avoiding out of hours discharges.
  • The hospital’s cancellation rate for operations was below the England average for all quarters in 2014/15
  • The trust was meeting national waiting times for diagnostic imaging within six weeks. However in October 2015 the percentage of patients Trust wide waiting over 6 weeks for all diagnostics was 6.2% compared to the England average of 2 – 2.5%. In diagnostic imaging no patients were waiting over 6 weeks in October 2015.
  • Outpatients referral to treatment for patients was meeting the standard to wait less than 18 weeks. The trust short notice cancellation rate for appointments were lower (better) than the England average.
  • Cancer waiting times for urgent referral appointments were below the national standard of two weeks (June 2014 – March 2015). However the trust was meeting the standard (April – June 2015). The trust was not meeting the standard for decision to treatment within 31 days (June 2014 – June 2015). The standard for 62-day cancer referral to treatment time was not met, specifically for urology and colorectal surgical treatments (June 2014 – June 2015). The trust was taking steps to reduce delays in these pathways.
  • Most patients were seen by the hospital palliative care team within 24 hours. The rapid discharge service for discharge to a preferred place of care was responsive to the needs of patients and families.
  • The hospital had implemented an improvement programme to reduce patient length of stay in hospital, and had identified specific barriers which they were addressing. There was a high number of delayed transfers of care. The main cause of delays was waiting for NHS non-acute care and patient and family choice, to meet patients’ ongoing needs. The provision of community services, especially care home and nursing home places, also caused delays.
  • The environment did not always support patient needs. Women on the urogynaecology ward had to walk past male patient bays to access toilet facilities. Not all wards had been refurbished to improve the environment for patients living with dementia, but this was planned.
  • Clinical staff knew how to access information to support them in meeting the needs of patients with a learning disability or living with dementia. They demonstrated an understanding of adjustments that could be made to support patients.
  • There was a robust complaints handling process and responses to complaints were detailed and considerate. Staff understood how to manage complaints and there was evidence of learning from concerns and complaints. However, complaints were not being responded in a timely manner, in July 2015, only 50% of complaints were responded to within the trust target of 25 days.

Are services well-led ?

  • The trust had published its vision, values, mission statement and objectives, and had taken action to assess and improve staff understanding of these. The trust had recently introduced values based appraisal and staff had better understanding of trust values if they had completed appraisal.
  • The trust described its five-year strategic plan for patient care, underpinned by six strategic objectives, taking into account the two possible outcomes of the clinical services review. The wider strategic direction of services was largely contingent on the ongoing outcome of the Dorset wide clinical services review. Service leads agreed with the trust’s preferred option to become the major emergency hospital in the area.
  • Most services had local strategic plans and were monitoring progress although this varied. The end of life care overarching strategy was produced in response the inspection, but had not been through consultation or approval by the board.
  • Most services had had effective clinical governance arrangements to monitor quality, risk and performance. However, governance processes in urgent and emergency care , maternity and gynaecology were not always effective in identifying issues and making improvements to safety and quality
  • Local risk registers did not always reflect all of the concerns described to us by staff, or provide sufficient detail on actions being taken. Information about risk and quality issues were not always shared with staff.
  • Staff were positive about the local leadership and the trust management focus on improving the hospital’s culture. However many staff noted a lack of visibility of the senior executive team.
  • Staff commented positively on local culture and teamwork. They said they would raise concerns about patient care if they witnessed poor practices.
  • Patient feedback was mainly through survey feedback or FFT, but there were some patent focus groups and the hospital had worked the local Healthwatch to obtain patient views.
  • Ideas to innovative and improve services were encouraged. There was participation in research and quality improvement projects
  • There was a cost improvement transformation group for every directorate in the trust. The service leads considered ‘safety and quality’ as a priority in the cost improvement plans (CIPs).

We saw areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The interventional radiology department had been awarded exemplar status by the British Society of Interventional Radiology for continuous audit, review and research in the unit, and improving patient experience. This award had been retained twice. The staff team were particularly proud of this achievement, particularly as they were not linked to a teaching hospital.
  • In Maternity and Gynaecology the Sunshine team offered support to women that were assessed as being vulnerable. They could be vulnerable due to mental illness or learning disability, but also from alcohol and substance misuse. The team worked with the local centre that cared for women who had been trafficked to Britain. The Sunshine team worked across health and social care and had excellent relationships with the police, education and the mental health. The service had been recognised by an all-party parliamentary group for its work with vulnerable women.

However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the trust must ensure :

  • At all times, emergency department patients are assessed and treated according to nationally agreed standards, particularly those for sepsis and fractured neck of femur
  • Emergency department transfer equipment is checked regularly to ensure that it is always ready for use.
  • All incidents are reported using the trusts incident reporting process and staff receive feedback.
  • Pain relief, drinks and food are given in a timely manner .
  • All staff comply with good hand hygiene and infection control practices
  • Equipment is appropriately labelled, maintained, checked, cleaned and tested.
  • Equipment that poses a risk of cross contamination is disposed of promptly
  • That all premises and environments used by patients are clean, secure and safe for use including theatres and the corridor between Derwent suite and main hospital.
  • All emergency equipment is checked and maintained in working order
  • All medicines are stored securely, correctly and within a safe temperature range .
  • Patient medicines are checked and recorded to ensure they receive the correct medicines when admitted to hospital
  • Medicines are administered in a safe manner, following national guidance and trust procedures
  • Patient risks are assessed and documented in a timely manner and escalated appropriately
  • A policy, protocol and appropriate equipment is available to remove a collapsed woman from a birthing pool, and staff are trained in its use.
  • Sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced persons are deployed at all times. Including sufficient numbers of permanent staff to provide guidance to the temporary staff about meeting patient individual needs in a safe manner.
  • Staff receive appraisal annually in line with trust policy and procedures and access to clinical supervision improves .
  • Privacy and dignity of patents is protected during care and treatment.
  • The hospital escalation procedures are improved so that delays to ambulance patients are minimised
  • Delays in discharge are reviewed to prevent patient stay in an inappropriate location and mixed sex breaches, particularly in critical care services.
  • There are effective systems to identify, assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety and mitigate risks across departments, in particular maternity and gynaecology services and the emergency department .

In addition the trust should ensure:

  • There is always a band 7 nurse in charge of each shift in the Emergency Department
  • There is a consultant presence in Emergency Department for 16 hours each day.
  • Appropriate monitoring takes place check that changes in practice are effective
  • There is a robust competency framework in place for nursing staff in the Emergency Department.
  • Junior medical staffing levels on critical care are reviewed as there are at times when staff are called away from the unit to other wards.
  • All PDGs are up-to-date and available for staff to use, in particular midwives and sexual health staff
  • Oxygen cylinders are stored safely in theatre areas.
  • Improvements in safety and communication around the critical care patient handover.
  • Policies and procedures are comprehensive and up to date within theatres and critical care.
  • Critical care clinical guidelines are up to date and appropriately approved and monitored.
  • There is a checklist for all critical care patient transfers
  • Multi-disciplinary team working improves in critical care services to ensure patients receive care according to recommendations and there is effective communication centred around the patient.
  • Improved multi-disciplinary working with the SNODs to increase the organ donation rate
  • Records are accessible in a timely way and there are improvements to the electronic patient record system
  • Where relevant, mental capacity assessments are completed on DNACPR forms.
  • Patients are offered the opportunity to wash their hands before meal times.
  • There is consideration of the provision of eating utensils and how food is presented at meal times
  • The environment on wards is suitable for people living with dementia
  • Privacy is improved for patients in the major treatment area in the emergency department
  • The accommodation of medical patients on surgical wards is minimised.
  • Facilities for relatives of patients in critical care and end of life care are improved.
  • There are separate toilet and washing facilities of the urogynaecology ward, so that women do not have to walk past male patients to access these facilities.
  • There is awareness of the interpreter service throughout the hospital
  • Regular team meetings or forums are set up to encourage shared learning amongst paediatric staff; especially paediatric nurses across the trust.
  • There is a sustainability/succession plan in place for paediatric dermatology service
  • Feedback from patients improves in critical care services
  • Staff engagement improves on critical care services .
  • there is consultation on the overarching end of life strategy with internal and external stakeholders.
  • Patient information is available in an easy to read format, and in other languages than English
  • The general décor of the chapel is improved
  • Chaplaincy provision review and timelines of delivery of good quality pastoral, spiritual and religious care
  • Patient outcomes data is collected and used to improve services in maternity and gynaecology
  • Duty of candour is appropriately considered in all cases where there is harm, a potential for harm, including psychological harm.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Inspection carried out on 24-25 and 30 Oct 2013/ follow up inspection 13-14 and 18 Aug 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust provides healthcare for the residents of Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset and part of the New Forest. It serves a population of around 550,000, and this rises during the summer. Some specialist services cover a wider catchment area, including Poole, the Purbecks and South Wiltshire.

The trust has two main locations: Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Christchurch Hospital. These are located about three miles apart on the South Coast. Most of the acute services are provided at Royal Bournemouth Hospital.

The trust has been inspected five times by CQC since it was registered in October 2011. It was in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in relation to the management of medicines in September 2011, but this was resolved in May 2012.

At the inspection in October 2013, children’s care, midwifery, critical care and end of life care services at the hospital were good. (The children’s service is limited to eye operations and the maternity service is a small midwifery-run unit.) In all services across the hospital, most staff were committed to the trust and eager to give good care to patients. Patients were complimentary about the care they received and the professionalism of staff on surgical services.

However, a number of services were not always safe, effective, responsive, caring or well-led. In particular we found that medical care (including care older people’s care) was inadequate. There were widespread and significant negative views from patients and staff. The trust’s Board had not focused sufficiently on improving or recognising these failures, or the urgent need to improve patient care. Other services requiring improvements to patients’ experience included A&E, surgical services and outpatients.

We were told about basic nursing care not being given to patients, in particular on medical care Wards 3 and 26. We heard about a patient who had had fluids and food restricted in error. We also heard from five patients who told us they had been left to wet or soil their beds.The hospital had a high occupancy rate and there had been ongoing use of escalation beds when a ward or unit was full. This was dangerous and could not meet any patient’s needs.

The trust did not at this time employ enough staff, even though it was fully aware that nearly all its beds were occupied all the time. We were told that there were 135 nursing and healthcare assistant vacancies at the end of September 2013. While 65 posts had been filled by late October 2013, the benefit to existing staff had not yet materialised, in particular for medical services. Some patients were still not receiving the care they needed in a timely manner, and there was an ongoing high risk of this continuing.

Patients who had suffered a stroke did not always have the fast access urgent treatment on the specialist unit that they needed.

Other issues we found were:

  • Care planning and evaluation did not always contain all relevant information, and staff on duty did not always know the specific care needs of people.
  • Mandatory training for staff was not always delivered on time, or they were not always suitably trained for the areas in which they might work, for example dementia care and assessing whether a patient is able to swallow.
  • Security arrangements in A&E left staff feeling vulnerable.
  • We found the trust overall was not ensuring effective leadership and governance across the hospital.

At the follow up inspection in August 2014, we found that significant improvements had been made and the issues found in October 2013 had been addressed.

The trust had agreed a two year organisation development plan with a focus on improving quality. A revised organisational structure was being implemented, with a strong emphasis on clinical leadership. This was supported by leadership training for all levels of staff. The governance systems had been strengthened at all levels and the Board members and senior management team were receiving more robust assurance of quality in all areas. We found there had been significant steps towards creating an open , transparent and learning culture at all levels of the organisation. The complaints policy and processes had been reviewed and the Trust was working more closely with local Healthwatch and patients to listen to their views and experiences, in order to make improvements.

The introduction of an Elderly Care Directorate with new assessment ward and pathways had improved the care for older people and the flow of patients through the hospital.

The unsafe escalation beds were no longer in use.

We found increases in staffing levels and increased support for junior doctors. The appointment of clinical matrons and support for ward sisters to focus on leadership and supervision of staff on the wards now supported planning and the delivery of safe and effective care. The speed of access to diagnostics and the stroke unit had improved, but the trust still needed to review the out of hours medical cover to ensure these patients had access to timely specialist assessment and treatment once on the Stroke Unit.

Improvements on A&E included improved security arrangements. We found evidence of training having a positive impact on patient care, particularly for those living with dementia. The trust was aware of the need for more robust patient pathways for some patients admitted to A&E and was in discussion with Commissioners and local NHS partners to make those improvements.

Staff were proud of the improvements achieved since the last inspection but recognised there was more to be done to ensure the changes were embedded and the quality of services sustained.

Inspection carried out on 24-25 and 30 October 2013

During a routine inspection

The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust provides healthcare for the residents of Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset and part of the New Forest. It serves a population of around 550,000, and this rises during the summer. Some specialist services cover a wider catchment area, including Poole, the Purbecks and South Wiltshire.

The trust has two main locations: Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Christchurch Hospital. These are located about three miles apart on the South Coast. Most of the acute services are provided at Royal Bournemouth Hospital.

The trust has been inspected five times by CQC since it was registered in October 2011. It was in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in relation to the management of medicines in September 2011, but this was resolved in May 2012.

Children’s care, midwifery, critical care and end of life care services at the hospital were good. (The children’s service is limited to eye operations and the maternity service is a small midwifery-run unit.) In all services across the hospital, most staff were committed to the trust and eager to give good care to patients. Patients were complimentary about the care they received and the professionalism of staff on surgical services.

However, a number of services were not always safe, effective, responsive, caring or well-led. In particular we found that medical care (including care older people’s care) was inadequate. There were widespread and significant negative views from patients and staff. The trust’s Board had not focused sufficiently on improving or recognising these failures, or the urgent need to improve patient care.

Other services requiring improvements to patients’ experience  included A&E, surgical services and outpatients. The seriousness of the impact of poor care on patients outweighed the many positive comments we received about the hospital. A number of complaints had not been addressed sufficiently for people.

We were told about basic nursing care not being given to patients, in particular on medical care Wards 3 and 26. We heard about a patient who had had fluids and food restricted in error. We also heard from five patients who told us they had been left to wet or soil their beds.

The hospital had a high occupancy rate and there had been ongoing use of escalation beds when a ward or unit was full. This was dangerous and could not meet any patient’s needs.

The trust did not employ enough staff, even though it was fully aware that nearly all its beds were occupied all the time. We were told that there were 135 nursing and healthcare assistant vacancies at the end of September. While 65 posts had been filled by late October, the benefit to existing staff had not yet materialised, in particular for medical services. Some patients were still not receiving the care they needed in a timely manner, and there was an ongoing high risk of this continuing.

Patients who had suffered a stroke did not always have the fast access urgent treatment on the specialist unit that they needed.

Other issues we found were:

  • Care planning and evaluation did not always contain all relevant information, and staff on duty did not always know the specific care needs of people.
  •  Mandatory training for staff was not always delivered on time, or they were not always suitably trained for the areas in which they might work, for example dementia care and assessing whether a patient is able to swallow.
  • Security arrangements in A&E left staff feeling vulnerable.
  • We found the trust overall was not ensuring effective leadership and governance across the hospital. 

Inspection carried out on 22, 23 November 2012

During a routine inspection

On the first day of this two day inspection, two inspectors carried out the inspection and on the second day two inspectors and an Expert by Experience.

We spoke with 18 patients, two relatives of patients and14 clinical staff. We also carried out a SOFI observational on one ward where patients were not able to tell us about their experiences. We looked at 10 patient files and discussed with staff the systems for managing patients’ records.

We also had discussions with the Nursing Director, senior staff representatives from the Estates Department, Human Resources Department and the hospital board.

The patients we spoke with had been fully involved in their treatment. Their consent had been obtained for procedures and operations. Signed consent forms were filed within patients’ medical records appropriately.

Patients reported that they were happy with their treatment and care. No one raised any concerns with us. They told us that they had been well looked after and were very positive about the staff.

We found that the Estates Department had developed highly organised and efficient systems for maintaining a safe environment for patients.

Overall, we found that there were efficient systems for management of records. Records we viewed were up to date, accurate and stored securely to maintain people’s confidentiality.

Inspection carried out on 28 May 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At this inspection we visited wards 5, 15, 18 and 26. On each ward we spoke with a

sample of patients and looked at records to track how their care was planned and

delivered. Some people we tracked in this way were not able to tell us about their

experience of being in hospital owing to their mental or physical frailty and so we either

observed how their care was managed or spoke with staff.

All the people we spoke to who were able to tell us about their stay in hospital were happy

with their care and treatment. One person said, "The care I have received has been

excellent", and another told us, "The staff have been brilliant". Everyone we spoke with

told us that they had been treated with respect and dignity and had been fully involved in

their treatment. They also told us that they had been given the medicines they required.

Inspection carried out on 19 April 2011

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At this inspection we visited wards 5, 15, 18 and 26. On each ward we spoke with a sample of patients and looked at records to track how their care was planned and delivered. Some people we tracked in this way were not able to tell us about their experience of being in hospital owing to their mental or physical frailty and so we either observed how their care was managed or spoke with staff.

All the people we spoke to who were able to tell us about their stay in hospital were happy with their care and treatment. One person said, “The care I have received has been excellent”, and another told us, “The staff have been brilliant”. Everyone we spoke with told us that they had been treated with respect and dignity and had been fully involved in their treatment. They also told us that they had been given the medicines they required.

Inspection carried out on 21 March 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Termination of Pregnancy Services

We did not speak to people who used this service as part of this review. We looked at a random sample of medical records. This was to check that current practice ensured that treatment for the termination of pregnancy was not commenced unless two certificated opinions from doctors had been obtained.

Inspection carried out on 29 September 2011

During a routine inspection

We inspected wards 3, 4, 9, 21 and 26, the emergency department, intensive care, the high dependency unit and the maternity ward.

We also spoke with the hospital’s lead on safeguarding, the person in charge of hospital security, the nursing director, a member of the board of governors, and people from the critical care outreach team.

When visiting wards we spoke with patients, some visiting relatives and members of staff. We also reviewed written records relating to people’s care.

On one ward, where patients were not able to tell us about their experiences, we used a formal observational tool to help gain an understanding of how the needs of people were being met.

We also received information from the hospital about how they complying with the outcome areas that we looked at.

Generally, we received good feedback from patients. We were told that people were fully informed about their treatment options and were involved when there were choices about their treatment. The majority of people said that the staff were courteous, caring and respectful of privacy and dignity. People were happy about the treatment they received and how they were involved in their discharge arrangements.

One person told us ‘I have had to be admitted three times to hospital this year and every time I cannot fault the care I have received’. Another person said ‘I am not rushed, the care is excellent’. Further comments received were 'Very good, can’t grumble’, and ‘It's been wonderful; everyone has gone out of their way to help me’.

Inspection carried out on 19 April 2011

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

Most patients and their relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care and treatment they received at Royal Bournemouth Hospital. They said they had been treated with courtesy and respect and that their privacy and dignity had been well protected. They said they were given clear information and had been involved in decisions about their care and rehabilitation. One relative had some concerns about their involvement in information sharing and four people we spoke with said that they thought there could be improvement in staff responding to call bells.

Patients and their families told us they felt their nutritional needs and dietary preferences were well met. They gave positive feedback about the quality, range and availability of food. People who required assistance with eating or drinking were complimentary about the way staff supported them.