You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Chesterfield Royal Hospital. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 May 2011
Date of Publication: 12 July 2011
Inspection Report published 12 July 2011 PDF | 155.41 KB

Contents menu

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

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 17/05/2011, checked the provider's records, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

People are able to make choices and have their say regarding their care and treatment. Staff treat people with respect and ensure their dignity is maintained. The current arrangements on the Women’s Health Unit do not allow people sufficient privacy and respect for their needs.

User experience

Most of the people we spoke with told us they felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment. They said that staff had explained about their care and treatment and they had been given enough information to help them to make decisions. Parents of children admitted to the hospital told us that they were given sufficient information and the child was also involved as much as possible where this was appropriate.

One person we spoke with had been in hospital three days and said that no one had explained about their care and treatment, and they had not been involved in decisions. There was no reference in the person’s care records to staff having discussed their care and treatment with them.

Various information leaflets were available on the ward, although not all patients we spoke to were aware of this. The ward managers said they were looking at the best place to display information for patients and visitors.

One patient who was admitted three days ago told us they had been given no information about the ward. The manager said that a ward information handbook was not available to patients and that staff should inform people about the ward on admission.

Most people we spoke with said that staff respected their privacy and dignity. One person said “they always make sure the curtains are closed for privacy and they’re very polite and friendly”. One person said that staff had not asked the person how they wanted to be addressed and they were being referred to by their surname, which was not their preferred name.

People told us their nurse call bell was available and they knew how to use it. On one ward, three people told us there was sometimes a delay in answering their call bell as the ward had been busy. We saw that call bells were within people’s reach where required and that calls were duly answered when the call bell was used.

On the Women’s Health Unit we saw that two people were accommodated in bay areas that did not provide sufficient privacy for their needs. Staff told us that, due to pressures on beds in other areas of the hospital, people were sometimes transferred onto the unit until a bed was available on an appropriate ward. This was the case during our visit. Staff felt that the presence of people with different needs had an impact on the privacy and dignity of people receiving care and treatment on the unit. An example given was that one person who had been waiting on the unit for a suitable bed elsewhere was confused and regularly shouted out. People attending for treatment had expressed concerns when they heard the person shouting out.

We saw that people were accommodated in same sex bays or single rooms. Not all single rooms had en-suite facilities. People said there were no problems in accessing same sex toilets and bathrooms. People in the newest wards told us they were pleased with the en-suite facilities in single rooms and the toilets and bathrooms for each bay as this helped maintain their privacy.

In the surveys and other information we looked at people usually felt they were involved in making decisions about their care. Also, people usually felt their dignity was maintained and they were treated with respect.

Other evidence

On the website for the hospital we saw details of how people could access an interpreter if they used sign language or a language other than English. The provider stated on the website “The Trust is committed to meeting the special needs of patients for whom there is an identified linguistic or sensory barrier to communication.”

Two members of staff we spoke with could not recall having received specific training regarding people’s privacy, dignity, independence and human rights. However, other staff said their induction training included people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

The 2010 findings from the Patient Environment Action Team (PEAT) inspections rated Chesterfield Royal Hospital as ‘good’ with regard to the privacy and dignity of people using the hospital. The PEAT inspections are self-assessments managed by the National Patient Safety Agency that check non-clinical aspects of patient experience.

In the survey we looked at, 28% of staff said they had received training about equality and diversity in the previous 12 months, (2009 – 2010). We asked the provider for more information about staff training in equality and diversity. The provider told us that since June 2010 all new starters have had a half day training session and existing staff are booked into sessions on a rolling programme. These training sessions had been evaluated positively by staff attending.