Warwick 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

At our last inspection we rated this key question as ‘Good’. At this inspection the rating has remained ‘Good’.

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

We assessed 3 quality statements. People did not experience discrimination and staff provided equity in access to care and treatment. They made reasonable adjustments where required and listened to people’s concerns to improve the service.

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 service put people were at the centre of their care and treatment.

People with specific care needs were supported as individuals and those needs met, including people with a learning disability. Facilities were available to support patients, carers, and staff in response to cultural, religious and emotional needs.

Victoria ward had been designed for people living with dementia or a cognitive impairment. For example, the corridor outside the ward had been made into a replica street with a bus stop, tearoom and shops.

The trust also had a delirium outreach team who provide targeted personalised care for people living with dementia or experiencing delirium during admission. They provided early assessment of delirium and behaviours of unmet needs, expedited discharge, created positive behaviour planning with people and provided outreach care in the community following a patient’s discharge.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service could tailor the way they provided information to meet a wide range of individual needs. This included providing information in easy read formats. Teams also had access to translation services, including British Sign Language, to support patients with face-to-face interpreting and translation needs.

However, we found 2 examples where the service had not been utilised to communicate with patients around whose first language was not English. This had impacted staff’s ability to deliver good-quality care and treatment.

When we raised this issue with the trust, they took immediate action to rectify this and purchased electronic tablets for all wards to use. The tablets have the trusts interpreting system downloaded onto them for staff to use to communicatee with patients who do not speak English as a first language, staff have also been provided with guidance on how to use the tablets.

Four patients we spoke to said theyfelt information was not always provided in a clear way. For example, one patient told us interventions during their admission had not been explained and they had received conflicting information about their investigation results.Inconsistent communication between departments and staff was highlighted as a theme within the Friends and Family Test (FFT) results. Departments and wards present their FFT results, including plans or improvements related to communication at Patient Experience Group.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People could access the service when they needed. The Trust were performing better than regional partners and the national average for referral to treatment times. In December 2024 there was a total of 31,926 patients on the waiting list at the trust, with an average of 64.4% of patients seen within 18 weeks and 1.7% over 52 weeks. Trust performance was below the national standard for 18 week waits which is 92%.The service worked with other healthcare professionals to provide a timely service for different healthcare needs and conditions needing specialist input.

The service considered the specific needs of the population and provided services in a way to meet them. For example, the trust’s frailty services worked well with the Community Response Team to prevent unnecessary admissions into hospitals. A ‘frailty phone line’ that ambulance crews could call to discuss cases to see if admission was necessary and if there was a more suitable way to support the person in the community.

The trust was considering how to improve prevention work in the areas using ‘geo-mapping’ to understand the population's demographics and how to support a healthier population.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality. This included making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities or cognitive impairment.

People were listened to when they wanted to share their experience.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.