Musgrove Park Hospital

Updated 27 June 2025

Date of assessment: 14 January to 11 February 2025. Musgrove Park Hospital provides a range of NHS hospital services. This assessment looked at the Children and Young People Service, due to new and emerging risk. We rated this service as Good. The rating from the Children and Young People Service has been combined with ratings of the other services from the last inspections. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all other services at Musgrove Park Hospital. The overall rating of Musgrove Park Hospital remains Good. In our assessment of the Children and Young People service we found the service fostered a positive learning environment where staff could raise concerns and managers thoroughly investigated incidents, ensuring people's safety. Staff understood and managed risks effectively, the facilities were clean, well-maintained, and met people's needs. There were sufficient staff with the right skills, who received regular training and appraisals, and medicines were well-managed with people's involvement.

People were involved in their care assessments, which considered their diverse needs and were based on current best practice. They received adequate nutrition, and staff collaborated with other agencies for good outcomes and smooth transitions. Staff ensured people understood their care to give consent and involved others in best-interest decisions when needed.

Leaders and staff shared a culture of learning and trust, with visible and supportive leaders promoting staff development. Staff felt supported, treated equally, and understood their responsibilities. The service engaged with the community, embraced improvement, had effective governance, managed performance well, and proactively managed risks.

The trust provided a safe, effective and well led service for children and young people. 

We looked at the Children and Young People service only. 

Updated 31 October 2024

Date of assessment 13 January to 11 February 2025.  

We carried out this assessment as a focused responsive inspection due to new and emerging risk using the Single Assessment Framework (SAF). We assessed three key questions; safe, effective and well led, and have combined the scores for these areas with scores from the last inspection to give the rating. Our rating of this location stayed the same.  

We rated it Good because the trust provided a safe, effective and well led service for children and young people. 

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. 

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved people who were important and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. 

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. There were effective governance processes. The service had systems to manage staff performance effectively. They were proactive in identifying and escalating risks, they held up to date risk registers and took prompt action to minimise their impact. 

Updated 24 March 2020

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and mostly managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients most, acted on them and kept good care records most of the time. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff consistently treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Nurse staffing levels in the four-bed high dependency respiratory area did not always meet the trust policy, specifically at night, although a business case had been submitted to address this.
• Although this had improved since our last inspection, when this was an area of concern, some emergency equipment was still not consistently checked on a daily basis in all areas.
• Staff were not compliant with the target for updating some mandatory training modules.
• The service was not meeting the NHS constitutional standards for treating patients on time in a number of specialties and over a number of years. This was not improving.

Updated 24 March 2020

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff mostly had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service mostly controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff consistently treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• There were concerns surrounding the environment and equipment. The critical care unit was situated within ageing buildings so the environment was complex to manage. There was unrestricted access to the unit (although this was resolved shortly after our inspection). There was unrestricted access to some equipment cupboards where locks had been damaged.

Updated 5 December 2017

A summary of this service appears in the Overall summary.

Updated 10 May 2024

Updated 5 December 2017

A summary of this service appears in the Overall summary.

Updated 5 December 2017

Updated 5 December 2017