King's Mill 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 rated effective as good. We assessed 3 quality statements. Staff comprehensively assessed people, so the care and treatment provided met their needs. This included both their mental and physical health and any personal circumstances that needed to be considered. Staff worked in a strong culture of evidence-based practice. Staff worked together and with others when assessing people’s needs and shared information to maintain continuity of care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff discussed people’s needs with them, and they were involved in how care and treatment was planned. They were confident they had been listened to and understood. Staff asked them for any updates, such as whether pain was being controlled, or if they had any additional needs. People said staff considered their wellbeing to give the best possible outcomes.

Staff used effective tools to support good clinical practice with people who had difficulties with communication. This included tools for people who had cognitive impairment, and interactive tools for understanding pain experienced by children. Staff assessed and acted on risks to patients of avoidable harm. Staff worked with other specially trained professionals to support people with additional needs.

Staff assessed and acted on risks to patients of avoidable harm, this included highlighting safeguarding issues which could be clinically relevant. Handovers included discussions about high-risk people. Staff were encouraged to contribute, and there was effective communication and shared learning.

Safety huddles, medical and nursing handovers regularly took place and included all necessary information to keep people and their care givers safe whilst in the department. We observed staff supporting a patient who was concerned about her daughter being alone in the waiting room.

People were involved as partners in their care. Staff responded passionately when people needed help and support and helped patients and those close to them to cope emotionally with their care and treatment.

The service had appropriate policies, protocols and patient pathways that were based on national guidance including sepsis management.

Processes were in place that ensured national guidance was followed and any required actions were implemented to promote effective learning and prevent similar incidents happening again.

Safety alerts were shared throughout the service and actions were implemented in line with national guidance.

The service used the Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR) communications which are conversations, principally critical ones requiring the nursing and medical team’s immediate attention and action, such as when a patient's condition is rapidly deteriorating.

Staff gave people clear information about their care and treatment needed to support both their physical and mental health in a way they could understand. Staff made sure patients, and their care givers had enough to eat and drink, including those with specialist nutrition and hydration needs. We spoke with one patient who told us “The staff have explained what is wrong with me and why there is a delay in admitting me to the ward”.

Staff used the trust’s systems to follow the latest guidance and evidence-based practice. The trust kept its database of guidance up to date. Staff used information given regularly in safety briefings and newsletters to implement new guidance or changes to existing procedures. They used effective tools for screening malnutrition and dehydration and acted on any indicators of concern.

The trust’s intranet contained a comprehensive range of up-to-date policies and standard operating procedures which reflected current practice. It had guidance for staff around collaboration with multi-agency teams and for delegation of clinical tasks to ensure the right people delivered evidence-based care and treatment.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff and leaders, we spoke with described how they routinely monitored people’s care and treatment with a view to continuous improvement.

Staff demonstrated how working within the multi-disciplinary team they were able to identify changes in patient condition and act to improve outcomes. Examples included pain control, timely observations and antibiotic therapy.

Staff ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The department had guidelines and policies which enabled staff to monitor patients’ outcomes during a care episode.

The department leaders audited outcomes in order to monitor improvements or deteriorations.

There were regular team meetings to discuss care and share ideas for improvement in specific patient pathways.

These processes including incident reviews and complaints were discussed at governance meetings.

This meant there were processes in place for oversight of safety and quality.

The service participated in relevant local and national clinical audits. Managers used information from the audits to improve care and treatment by sharing outcomes with staff and introducing training and making other changes to improve performance. As a result, the trust had re-introduced all aspects of sepsis education as part of mandatory training.

The team had a good understanding of quality improvement methods and the skills to use them.

As a result of increased sepsis awareness, the service had developed a new adult and child infection and sepsis screening tool which had made improvements in the recognition and treatment of sepsis in both adults and children.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.