- NHS hospital
Chesterfield Royal Hospital
Assessment report published 16 September 2026
Contents
Ratings - Medical care (Including older people's care)
Our view of the service
We carried out an on-site inspection of medical care (Including older people's care) on 2 and 3 June 2026. We previously inspected this service in 2020 and rated it requires improvement. At this inspection the rating improved to good.
The inspection included observations of care, conversations with patients, relatives and staff, review of patient records, and assessment of governance, quality and performance information.
We spoke with 49 members of staff across a range of roles and grades. These included senior leaders, matrons, ward managers, registered nurses, healthcare assistants, doctors, therapists, discharge coordinators, domestic staff, housekeeping staff, pharmacists and other support staff. We spoke with 15 patients and relatives about their experiences of care and treatment. We reviewed 15 patient records and 4 Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms. We also observed care delivery and interactions between staff and patients across ward areas.
We visited 9 wards and clinical areas, including inpatient wards and same day emergency care (SDEC), to observe care delivery, and check the environment and records. We also spoke with patients and staff. We reviewed policies, audits, governance information, workforce data, risk information and other documents provided by the trust to support this assessment.
We inspected all quality statements within the safe and effective key questions and one quality statement within the well-led key question.
Overall, we found the service had improved since the previous inspection. Patients received safe, effective and well-coordinated care. Leaders had oversight of the risks facing the service and demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement.
We found that medicine services had improved since the previous inspection. Staff worked collaboratively across professional groups to meet patients’ needs, and there was evidence of effective multidisciplinary working, learning and continuous improvement. Staff followed best practice when assessing patients, treating them and planning for discharge
Leaders had clear systems in place to make sure services were safe, high quality and performing well. They regularly checked for risks, solved problems and made improvements where needed. However, we found environmental risks were not always managed consistently at ward level. There were not always enough staff to support patients fully. Not all staff had completed their mandatory training.
Safe
The service had improved since the previous assessment and demonstrated a positive safety culture. Staff understood how to report incidents, escalate concerns and learn from patient safety events. Systems were in place to support safe care, safeguarding, infection prevention, medicines management and the management of deteriorating patients. Leaders monitored safety through governance, audit and assurance processes. Some environmental risks and workforce pressures remained, although these were recognised and monitored through established governance arrangements.
Effective
The service provided care and treatment that was based on patients’ assessed needs and current evidence-based practice. Staff worked collaboratively across multidisciplinary teams to support assessment, treatment and discharge planning. Patients were generally positive about their involvement in care and treatment decisions. The service monitored outcomes through audit, quality improvement activity and governance processes which supported continuous improvement.
Caring
This key question was not assessed as part of this inspection. The rating remains good from the previous assessment.
Responsive
This key question was not assessed as part of this inspection. The rating remains good from the previous assessment.
Well Led
The service was supported by clear governance and assurance arrangements that enabled leaders to oversee quality, safety and performance. Leaders used information relating to risk, outcomes and operational performance to support decision-making and service improvement. There was evidence of learning, innovation and sustainability initiatives, and leaders demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement and the delivery of good quality care.
People's experience of this service
Patients and relatives were mostly positive about their experiences of medical care services. Feedback reflected that patients felt cared for, respected and supported throughout their hospital stay. Patients described staff as approachable and spoke positively about the way staff interacted with them and their families.
Our observations during the inspection supported this feedback. We observed staff treating patients with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff introduced themselves to patients, explained the care and treatment they were providing and sought consent before delivering care. We saw staff respond compassionately to patients' needs and provide reassurance and support when required. We also observed positive interactions between staff, patients and relatives across ward areas.
Patients told us they felt informed about their care and valued the support provided by staff during their admission. They also commented positively on the way different professional groups worked together, and many recognised the pressures staff were facing whilst continuing to provide care.
Some patients identified areas where their experience could have been better. A few patients described uncertainty regarding treatment plans or discharge arrangements, and some felt information was not always communicated consistently. A small number of patients also described delays in receiving assistance at times.
Overall, patient feedback was positive and indicated people felt safe and supported whilst receiving care. Patients consistently recognised the commitment of staff and the efforts made to meet their individual needs during their admission.