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

We looked for evidence people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked the health and care needs of people were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care to meet these needs. We also looked for evidence people could access care in ways which met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

The service made sure children, and young people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of their patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved children and young people in decisions about their care. The service made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Responsive is rated as good. This meant children and young people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure children, and young people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in children’s needs.

There were facilities for families so they could spend time with their children. Parents had access to a kitchen where they could get hot drinks. Parents they told us they were offered meals so they could eat with their children, or if not, they were able to bring in their own food from home.

Care reflected staff who understood their patient. The service used the Barnardo’s assessment framework (BAF) a structured, trauma-informed, and child-centric tool designed to identify needs, strengths, and risks, ensuring improved outcomes for children and families. The BAF tool assessed possible past trauma in children and safeguarding concerns. Staff gave us examples of how this had worked well, building trust with children and allowing them to discuss past experiences in a safe environment.

During our inspection we attended a child in crisis meeting, which was a daily meeting known as the bronze meeting. We observed staff discussing patients’ care planning and needs. The nurses and the other professionals, which included Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and social care teams, discussed patients and gave feedback and any current and past interventions.

The service made reasonable adjustments where necessary to support the most appropriate care and treatment. For example, the ward had a sensory room. This room has newly been designed and was a ligature safe room. It provided a calm environment with sufficient equipment for children and young people use. There was also additional equipment which could be brought in dependent on the child’s needs and wishes. Staff assessed the individual child, talked to them, and then used sensory equipment to support them. The door to the sensory room was a specialist door and could be opened completely independently from the frame. This was designed to allow staff access if a child had possibly barricaded themselves in. There was a playroom and a room for older children. Both rooms had age-appropriate toys and activities for age and had outside spaces, which were in the process of being further developed.

During our visit we were shown the Blossom Room, which was a therapeutic room on the ward and was also used as a bereavement room. Staff would have therapeutic conversations with patients, families and their carers in this room. They would discuss the child and young person’s support needs and reasonable adjustments to be made during their stay. The room was used for multidisciplinary meetings with parents and other professionals. It had a double bed built into the wall which dropped down for parents or family members to use if they needed to stay on the ward overnight. The Blossom Room was decorated with relaxing colours and was clearly relatively new. An example we were given of people using this room was a child who was at the end of their life and living in the community. It was agreed that the family could come in and use the room when the child was admitted into the ward to be able to spend as much time as possible with them.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was continuity in patient care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. The service worked closely with other healthcare and social care providers including local specialist NHS hospitals, community teams, mental health teams, social care and health and support services. There was continuity with partners in health and social care. Local mental health services were working closely with the staff. The service also worked closely with the local authority. Multiagency meetings took place when needed where social service staff attended if there were decisions about community support required, particularly for a looked-after child.

If required, the service could access the KIDS Intensive Care & Decision Support & Neonatal Transfer Service, a specialist NHS team providing 24/7 expert advice and emergency transfer for critically ill children and neonates across the West Midlands. The service was operated by a local NHS hospital trust.

The service mostly supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs. However, they did not have a reasonable adjustment flag on the patient record system to notify staff of patients who may need extra support or changes to their treatment plan. Staff told us there was an implementation team working on this but was available at the time of our visit.

Not all patient records linked together. For example, the record system in the emergency department (ED) did not link with that of the children's ward. Staff therefore relied on verbal handovers to share information about for example, patient’s disabilities and needs. We found this was not always consistently shared. The paediatric crisis, neurodiversity and learning disability lead nurse explained that one of the team attended the ED daily to review the admissions and identify any patients for transfer to children and young people wards, who had needs for additional support.

Not all information was recorded or handed over consistently and some patients who needed reasonable adjustments when admitted could be missed. The paediatric crisis, neurodiversity and learning disability lead nurse on MacGregor ward explained the process for checking on children that were in the ED and due to be admitted to MacGregor ward. Staff checked the ED system daily and spoke to ED staff about any children or young people to gather information about their needs. Nurses in the ED department documented if a child was neurodiverse, if they had a learning disability or autism. However, there was no set of questions that were consistently asked of all children, young people, parents or carers.

Children, young people and their families’ needs around interpretation and translation were met. Staff assessed children and young people’s needs when they first attended the ward. Where children or young people (or their families) did not speak English or their first language was not English, staff used an interpreter to ensure they completed a full assessment. Information leaflets were available in many different languages to ensure children, young people and their families had the information they needed, and they could understand in relation to their care and treatment. Children, young people, parents and carers were given information from staff in formats they could understand. This was delivered in their preferred communication method and could be verbally, with leaflets, using translation, or communication aids.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Children, young people, their parents and carers had a good understanding of how to complain if they were unhappy with the care and treatment given. Staff said that talking as much as possible to children, young people and their families had helped understand if they were unhappy with anything and deal with it quickly. Staff encouraged families to raise concerns or complaints if they felt it was necessary.

The service monitored complaints and outcomes and involved people in how complaints were resolved. The service had a complaint tracker and between 1 May 2025 and 30 September 2025 there were 4 complaints. Of the complaints, 2 were about the attitude of staff and 2 about an incorrect or a delay in diagnosis. We saw the responses for these complaints which included arranging a meeting with parents, further explanation from a consultant. Improvements from complaints included the implementation of a Newborn Early Warning Track and Trigger (NEWTT2). This is a framework that also encompasses parental concern to acknowledge the importance of the opinion of the family in addition to the wider multidisciplinary team.

The service made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Children and young people were able to access care and treatment when it was needed, or as soon as waiting lists made appointments available. Some waiting lists were long. However, children who needed care and treatment in the service as an emergency or urgently were accommodated without unsafe waiting times. The waiting list for 1 November 2025 showed 8 patients awaiting treatment who had been on the list for over 52 weeks, of these 8, there were 4 patients the service was offering appointments to from another local NHS trust.

Care was provided in line with evidence-based practice, quality standards and legal requirements. The trust’s policies met these requirements and those of quality and human rights legislation. Reasonable adjustments were made for people with disabilities and premises were accessible for anyone to use safely.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups. They understood their community and specific needs of the population to ensure everyone could have equity in access.

The chapel and multifaith rooms were open 24 hours a day, this was a quiet space for anyone to use. Other faith leaders could be contacted as required.

Staff worked with patients, families and their carers to support successful discharges home.

Staff were mostly committed to ensuring equitable access, outcomes, and experiences for all patients, including those with learning disabilities, autism, and mental health needs. Staff had received specific training and had access to specialist teams for support and advice.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Children and young people and those who supported them were able to give their views of their experience and outcomes. Staff took these views into account in seeking to give all patients the best outcome. If there was discrimination or inequality recognised, this was addressed to improve care and mitigate the risk of poor outcomes. The service had protocols and policies to comply with legal equality and human rights legislation.

Staff had a good understanding of the diversity within the local and wider community. They worked closely with outside agencies to be able to provide a service to meet the diverse needs of the local community and provide equity in experience and outcomes for patients.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Children, young people, and their families said they felt staff gave them good information about planning for their future when they left hospital. They could make informed choices and say what mattered to them. The service worked closely with other health and social care professionals, including GPs, community care teams, and social services to help the child and their family plan for the future.

End of life care was managed sensitively and with compassion. Any decisions about treatment or care were made with a multidisciplinary team approach and full involvement of the family and carers.