You are here

Chesterfield Royal Hospital Good

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 cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection (outcome 8)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Providers of services comply with the requirements of regulation 12, with regard to the Code of Practice for health and adult social care on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

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 protected by the effective systems in place to prevent, detect and control the spread of infection.

User experience

People told us that maintaining cleanliness and hygiene appeared to be a high priority on the wards. They said “They are in my room every couple of hours mopping and cleaning, this room is spotless”, “the cleaning routine is extremely thorough”, and “staff are always washing their hands”.

Most people told us the staff had not specifically told them what precautions they or their visitors should take to protect them from the risks of infection. People said they had seen posters about hand washing around the hospital and they used the hand gel provided.

In the surveys and other information we looked at people said they were protected against the risk of infection and the premises were maintained to appropriate levels of cleanliness.

Other evidence

We observed staff using disposable aprons and gloves appropriately and disposing correctly of clinical waste, including needles. We observed that the wards we visited appeared clean. On the new wards we visited we saw that the sluice rooms were designed for good infection control. There was an in and out system, from dirty to clean, in the sluice room which ensured that soiled items did not come into contact with clean ones. We saw that when commodes were cleaned and ready for use, a tag was attached to show this and to ensure that only clean equipment was used.

On one of the older wards visited, we saw that the sluice room was clean, though there was limited storage and no designated clean and dirty areas. The provider told us there were plans to upgrade the sluice rooms on the older wards to the same standard as those on the newer wards.

Staff told us about some of the systems in place, such as infection control audits, and people with an infection being cared for in a single room. Staff told us they had training about infection control every year.

We saw information on posters around the hospital and on the provider’s website for people using the hospital, visitors and staff about the prevention and control of infection. The provider had a campaign called “Save lives, clean hands” which was promoted on the website and in the hospital.

The provider had notified incidents about the control of infection to CQC as required. For example, they had told us about the closure of a ward due to Norovirus and the action they had taken to prevent this infection spreading.

We asked the provider to send us written information about how they were complying with regulations. The provider told us they had an ‘in-house’ infection prevention and control team and systems in place to manage and monitor the prevention and control of infection. The infection prevention and control team reported to senior managers and to the board of governors.

The systems in place included monthly audits of hand hygiene, staff appearance and infection control practice. Cleanliness audits were carried out and the frequency of these was based on the level of risk in each area of the hospital. We asked the provider for the results of the latest cleanliness and infection control audits they had carried out for the wards we visited during our inspection visit. The results for May 2011 showed high scores for the criteria checked: hand hygiene, staff appearance, commode cleanliness, infection prevention and control practice.

The provider told us that all staff had training about infection control and hand hygiene as part of their induction and also as part of their annual training.