Goole & District Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed 6 quality statements for this key question. We looked for evidence people had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Patients told us they were involved in decisions about their individual needs. They said staff listened to them and ensured they fully understood the information provided.

Staff described how they assessed patients’ individual communication needs, and we observed staff doing this during our visit.

We reviewed three sets of outpatient notes during the inspection. However, none of these included a record from the patient’s visit that day.

Leaders explained the hospital was transitioning to an electronic, paperless record system. However, this system was not available during our assessment. As a result, the paper medical notes we reviewed did not include a section for nursing staff to record information from that day’s clinic visit. Staff used a separate clinic sheet to document routine observations and identify patient needs, including blood pressure, pulse, BMI and urine testing.

Medical staff were part of the initial rollout of a new electronic documentation system. They recorded notes and letters electronically.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Patients told us staff provided full information about their care and treatment before obtaining consent.

Staff and leaders described the induction, training and development opportunities available. Leaders supported staff at all levels, from healthcare assistants to ward managers, to progress in their roles. Two healthcare assistants were seconded to undertake a nursing apprenticeship at university, and two had completed their Care Certificate.

The ward manager attended monthly matron joint outpatient’s governance meetings. This agenda included complaints, audit, trust news, quality improvement initiatives and cost saving suggestions. Weekly meetings were held to discuss clinic utilisation to ensure full use of capacity.

Leaders told us appraisals were usually up to date. However, in February 2026 the appraisals compliance rate was 63.7%. This did not meet trust target. Leaders met monthly with human resources to review any performance issues. They reported no concerns relating to the service.

The service delivered a wide range of specialist outpatient clinics and procedures. Staff were experienced, qualified, and held the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of these patient groups.

Some patients underwent day case procedures in the department. The service used a colposcopy data system to record the procedure. The records we reviewed did not include information required to ensure that safety and monitoring of procedures were robust such as those found in the World Health Organisation (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist. The Trust acknowledged this gap and had begun reviewing the issue.

Leaders described the ward assurance tool, an electronic audit management and tracking system. The service completed monthly audits and consistently achieved compliance levels above 90%. Leaders monitored actions and improvements through the relevant care group governance meetings. The February 2026 audit identified the non-completion of notes as a recurrent theme. We did not see actions recorded to address this in the audit output or governance minutes we reviewed.

No national audits were applicable to the service. The service participated in one local clinical audit – Community Frailty and Therapy Record Keeping Audit. Compliance over the six months before our assessment was 98.3%.

Staff regularly supported patients who received bad news. They provided patients with information and contact details for relevant nurse specialists. Leaders told us specialist nurses used to attend the clinic to support clinicians with breaking bad news, but this no longer occurred regularly. This responsibility had therefore fallen to service staff. Staff told us they took pride in offering this support and had built positive relationships with both medical staff and patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Patients told us staff supported them and worked well together. They said they were seen promptly and praised the NHS App for helping them manage their appointments.

Staff told us they had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. They were aware their responsibilities could change during staff absence, although this occurred rarely. Staff and leaders described how they supported the wider organisation when needed.

Outpatient staff wore different coloured uniforms for easy identification, supported by a poster explaining staff roles.

Leaders told us they provided support to outpatient managers across the Trust. They worked collaboratively to address service issues and share best practice.

We observed a daily safety huddle chaired by the ward manager. Staff discussed slips and trips, sickness, actions required, issues to report, and any clinical cancellations.

Diagnostic services were accessible to outpatient clinics on weekdays. We observed consultants reviewing scan images onscreen both before and during patient appointments. They discussed their findings with patients whilst screen sharing, involving them in their care and clinical decision making.

Clinicians could refer patients to therapists, such as physiotherapists, using online forms or dictated letters. All documentation sent was dated, timed, printed, named, and signed. Clinicians sought additional information from other specialists, such as rheumatologists, when GP referrals lacked necessary detail. This ensured patients received clear explanations of all available treatment options.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

Patients told us they were fully involved in decision-making to help them remain as independent as possible.

Staff described how they supported patients to maintain their health. They discussed health needs with patients and provided written and electronic patient information leaflets. One staff member told us they acted as the health and wellbeing champion for the service. They regularly updated the notice board in the main outpatient department and reception corridor.

We observed a wide range of patient information leaflets, booklets, and posters containing QR codes to enable downloading of information to electronic devices. Leaders told us they were aware some patients could not access electronic information, and they ensured printed copies were available when required.

We saw posters displaying voluntary support groups, bereavement support, and counselling services for cancer patients and their relatives.

A welcome poster was displayed in 22 languages.

Information was available in accessible formats but was not routinely provided in different languages. Staff told us they used portable translation devices to support people who spoke limited English, or for whom English was not their first language. Letters could be translated for those patients using digital platforms.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Patients completed friends and family questionnaires, and staff shared the results within the service. We reviewed 13 months of data and found most service feedback was positive.

Departmental audits were undertaken and recorded onto an Audit Management and Tracking (AMaT) system. Audits were scheduled and completed on time. Staff shared audit data and dashboards to support performance improvement. Audit results for February 2026 showed 98% compliance across the service.

The service participated in Patient Reportable Outcome Measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing elective hip and knee procedures.

The Hospital were rolling out ward audit standards (ward accreditation). However, this had not been yet rolled out to the service. The service used the 15-step challenge, a toolkit used to explore healthcare settings thought the eyes of patients and relatives. The results from these were visible on the wall in the department.

The Trust monitored waiting times, cancellations, and service activity. However, during our visit we observed a delay to two clinics. One clinic started over an hour late because the consultant had been on call overnight and needed to travel from another site. Staff did not report this delay as a safety event, and the ward manager could not tell us how many clinic delays occurred. This meant we were not assured delays and their impact on clinic activity were routinely monitored or shared with the ward manager and staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Patients received clear and helpful verbal and written information before consenting to their procedures.

Staff told us they supported patients in clinic to ensure they understood information provided to make their own decisions. They always provided patients with information leaflets to help them make an informed choice. Staff described occasions when they had assisted patients who appeared to struggle to understand what was being explained. This included a patient who decided not to consent to the procedure at that time.

Staff could describe the process for patients with impaired mental capacity.

Leaders told us they follow the trust consent policy. We observed the correct consent process in clinic.

Consent records we reviewed were completed correctly.