West Cornwall Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

People were involved in the assessment of their needs, and support was provided where needed to maximise their involvement. Patients scheduled for surgery were assessed in a pre-admission clinic through a combination of face-to-face and telephone consultations. Risk assessments were completed during these appointments, including evaluations of venous thromboembolism (a serious medical condition where a blood clot forms in a deep vein, obstructing blood flow), skin integrity, communication needs, and mental capacity to consent to treatment.

People were confident their individual needs were assessed and understood. Patients told us they had opportunities to discuss both physical and mental health needs with staff and felt assured their concerns would be listened to and addressed.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. Staff had access to policies and procedures aligned with national guidance and worked to minimise risks associated with surgical procedures by following best practice. They adhered to sequential safety steps in line with the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs 2).

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met in accordance with current guidance. The service had implemented a ‘sip til send’ initiative, which is a globally recognised approach endorsed by the Centre for Perioperative Care (CPOC). This allows patients to drink small amounts of water or similar fluids while waiting for surgery, helping to reduce thirst, anxiety, dehydration, and headaches while maintaining patient safety.

People told us they received sufficient pain relief and were provided with food and drink following their procedure.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. Multidisciplinary team safety huddles were held to plan and coordinate care and treatment. Although ward staff were not always able to attend these huddles, managers were implementing a new process to improve communication of theatre list changes to ward teams more efficiently. In the interim, key information was shared as soon as possible, either in person or via telephone.

Plans for transition, referral and discharge considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, ongoing care arrangements and expected outcomes.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

Patients were provided with information leaflets before and after surgery, which included details about their condition, the procedure, what to expect on returning home, and contact numbers for further support.

People said they received sufficient information to help them prepare for surgery, as well as clear advice and support for their recovery afterward.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There were effective approaches to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes. The trust routinely monitored and reported on referral-to-treatment times and surgical performance metrics.

The service also used surgical audits, which were reviewed at local audit and governance meetings to monitor performance and identify improvements. These included positive findings from a post-operative gynaecology audit, as well as audits of urology discharge summaries and patient documentation, which highlighted areas of good practice and opportunities for improvement.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

There were systems and practices to ensure people understood the care and treatment being offered or recommended. Staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act and were able to clearly explain the consent process. We observed consent was checked, with patients asked to confirm the procedure they were having. People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care and in the consent process.