West Cornwall 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care and treatment suitable to their needs, with reasonable adjustments made where necessary. We heard examples of how autistic people and those who needed support relating to their learning disability were assessed, and if suitable for surgery at the service, were given appropriate support.

Some theatre lists were split into morning and afternoon sessions. However, for all‑day lists the service did not use staggered admissions, with all patients asked to arrive in the morning. This resulted in some long waits before procedures. Leaders said this approach was intended to maximise flow, but it was under review to improve patient experience while maintaining efficiency.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. People reported the pathway from initial presentation at their GP through to surgery was smooth, with clear information provided throughout. Patients scheduled for surgery were seen in pre-admission clinics where risk assessments were completed. They also had the opportunity to discuss both their physical and mental health needs with staff.

There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. Staff guided patients through the discharge process, making sure any ongoing care or follow-up appointments were arranged before they left. For example, patients needing hand therapy were booked into appointments at another hospital within the trust, while general surgery follow-up appointments were arranged and sent to patients by post.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People said they received information in a timely manner and staff took time to explain procedures clearly. Patients were provided with information leaflets and said they had enough time to read and understand them. Additional information was also available on the trust’s website, with options to request it in large print, braille, audio format, or in other languages.

People said they felt well informed, were kept updated about any delays, and felt able to ask questions if they needed further information.

As part of the discharge process, patients were given information about their ongoing care and any support they might need after leaving the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People knew how to provide feedback about their experiences of care and support. Leaflets explaining how to raise concerns were readily available in the department, outlining both informal and formal routes through the Patient Experience Team. People said they had opportunities to discuss any concerns, felt listened to, and were involved in decision-making.

The service used the Friends and Family Test to gather patient feedback. This anonymous tool allows patients to rate their experience of NHS services. Comments included: “Lovely nurses/doctors were really good with me, even with me having a needle phobia.” To improve response rates, the service was developing a more streamlined survey.

The service viewed learning from complaints and concerns as an opportunity for improvement. Patient stories were used to highlight learning and were shared across the trust through forums such as monthly care group governance meetings and trauma and orthopaedics clinical governance meetings. The management of complaints was monitored in weekly Peripheral Sites Care Group Governance Huddles. Key themes identified from complaints included communication, clinical treatment, and patient care. In response, leaders outlined actions to strengthen communication, professional behaviour, and clinical consistency across the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Policies and guidance documents ensured patients were selected for day case surgery using clear eligibility criteria. This enabled consistent decision-making and ensured patients were treated at the most suitable site for their care.

Services were designed to be accessible and responsive to those who may have difficulty accessing care. Patients’ mobility was assessed during pre-operative assessments. Staff were informed in advance of autistic patients or patients with learning disabilities, and where required, patients could be supported by a relative, carer, or the Learning Disability Team. The ward environment also supported accessibility, with dementia-friendly doors to aid patient orientation.

The trust monitored waiting times and cancellation rates for planned surgery. Referral to Treatment (RTT) performance was reviewed monthly and reported to the trust board. Recent data showed the trust was on course to meet its target of ensuring 74% of patients waited no more than 15 weeks for treatment by March 2026.

The trust fell in the best quartile for both 18-week and 52-week waiting time performance in the NHS Model Health System. This is a digital tool designed for NHS trusts in England to benchmark productivity, quality, and efficiency.

The trust identified several key areas for improvement. Actions to enhance performance included introducing weekend operating at some sites and exploring the use of additional locum staff.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service promoted an inclusive environment where patients were supported to express their views. People told us they had opportunities to discuss their individual health beliefs and preferences.

The trust had a Patient Engagement Co-ordinator and an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Officer who worked with groups such as LGBTQ+ patients, people with hearing loss, and carers to better understand potential barriers and unmet needs.

The provider met legal requirements relating to equality and human rights. Staff received training in equality, diversity and human rights, and equality impact assessments were completed for policies to identify and address any potential negative impact on individuals or groups.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

People said discharge planning was discussed with them, and they had no concerns about the process or what to expect. Medicines were clearly explained, and information was provided at discharge.

Patients were referred to this site for day-case surgery based on strict suitability criteria. As the main acute hospital was approximately a 50-minute drive away, only those assessed as low risk were considered suitable. Consequently, staff were not routinely involved in supporting patients with decisions about significant life changes, such as end-of-life planning.