University 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 rated responsive as requires improvement. People received person-centered care and did not experience discrimination. The service was inclusive and took account of people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. Staff listened to people’s concerns to improve the service. The service did not meet NHS treatment standards due to the backlog caused by COVID 19.

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.

People’s experience

Patients described their care as person-centred. Patients we spoke with said the quality of the food was good and there was a wide variety of options that considered their individual dietary and cultural and religious preferences.

Patients whose first language was not English were provided with interpreters and condition-specific information in their native language.

Feedback from staff and leaders

The medical records we viewed showed staff had taken patients individual needs into account when planning their care. Staff ensured patients with mental health problems and learning disabilities received the care they needed to meet all of their requirements. They were knowledgeable about the actions they could take and the resources they could access if a patient with additional needs was identified. We reviewed a patient's notes, which clearly documented how their individual needs were met and the required adjustments. A learning disability liaison team was available, and staff described them as responsive.

The vascular team had worked on patient empowerment and community engagement initiatives. This included creating support groups for patients to share their experiences, involving patients and the public in decision-making and service improvements, and organising 2 sponsored walks to raise funds for the trust's charity. Staff reported how these efforts had improved care delivery efficiency, reduced patient waiting times and clinic waste. They had led to clearer discharge plans, enhanced social and mental well-being, and highlighted the importance of patient involvement in the care journey.

The service had a learning disability quick action guide available for staff, along with guidance on the admission and discharge process for patients with a diagnosed learning disability. We were informed that guidelines and a toolkit to support the care of patients requiring reasonable adjustments were still in draft form in September 2024. An acute liaison learning disability team was also available to provide support.

A colorectal patient experience survey revealed that 100% of patients felt they were treated with dignity and respect and were able to ask questions. Additionally, 96% understood the information discussed, and 100% agreed they received their appointment on time. Eighty-two percent reported receiving results within an acceptable timeframe. Staff explained this work had led to an improved pathway for communicating test results to patients and enhanced timely communication between the patient and their GP.

Observation

Staff addressed patients by their preferred name and were polite and friendly. They maintained patients' dignity while meeting their care needs. We observed a nurse speaking calmly and reassuring to a post-operative patient who was feeling agitated. A nurse also explained pain relief options and provided a clear explanation of how some equipment worked.

Staff offered patients assistance with meals and helped them sit up to eat when needed.

There were 65 formal complaints related to surgical services between July and October 2024. The most common issues were related to clinical treatment, appointments, and communication. There were 4 formal complaints that were still open for investigation by the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman. Trends and themes from complaints were used to improve the service.

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.

People’s experience

Patients received essential information about their health conditions and procedures. This information was made available in verbal and written form in multiple languages. Patients were provided with access to translation services.

However, some patients told us they would have liked more information about the running order of the theatre list and any associated delays. They felt this would reduce long periods of being nil by mouth.

Feedback from staff and leaders

Staff ensured patients had access to the relevant information about their conditions and that consent was obtained in line with national guidance. This was shown in the medical records we viewed.

Processes

Staff had timely and easy access to the information needed to provide effective care and treatment. The service had clear policies and processes to ensure patients received appropriate information, with adjustments made when necessary to meet individual needs.

The trust’s website provided patients with a live waiting time dashboard and details about the services available at each hospital location. This allowed patients to make informed decisions about where to seek care based on current waiting times. The website enabled patients to book or amend appointments, schedule blood tests and urgent eye appointments, and provide feedback on services. There was also a ‘look up function’ that provided patients with information about trust departments and individual consultants.

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's experience

Patients were treated fairly and did not experience discrimination or inequality in accessing services. Those with additional needs, such as disabilities, mental and physical health conditions, communication difficulties, or cognitive impairments, received reasonable adjustments to support their care. Patients told us they were listened to when sharing their experiences.

However, we noted a theme from complaints which reflected the long waits to access treatment.

Feedback from staff and leaders

Staff worked hard to ensure patients had equal access to care. There was a strong culture of preventing discrimination and inequality. Staff listened to patients' concerns and complaints, using feedback to improve the service where possible.

Processes

The service did not meet NHS treatment standards due to the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic across England. However, managers worked continuously to reduce waiting times and address the backlog, showing steady progress. The service collaborated with other healthcare professionals to ensure timely care, particularly for serious conditions requiring specialist input. There was an action plan to move a large amount of low-risk surgery to the Hospital of St Cross site to improve capacity at Coventry. There was a backlog in all specialities, but we noted ophthalmology, and cardiothoracic patients were severely affected. This was reflected on the divisional risk register.

Managers worked to minimise the number of cancelled operations. When a last-minute cancellation occurred, they ensured the procedure was rescheduled as soon as possible. All elective cancellations were rebooked within 3 days. Staff and managers also planned patient discharges early, closely monitoring delays to identify wards with the most issues and taking action to reduce them.

The service audited waiting times, and data shared during our assessment showed a general trend of improvement. The operational leadership team, led by the deputy group director of operations, held weekly meetings to improve access to clinical services and reduce waiting times. To ensure equal access for all patients, the service operated a single patient waiting list for each clinical specialty.

The website also provided patients with access to a library of patient information leaflets. All information was available in an accessible format, with an option for patients to select their preferred language for automatic translation.

The current average waiting time for referral to treatment time for surgical services combined was 21 weeks, with the average waiting time for trauma and neurosciences 28 weeks.

From September 2023 to August 2024, 30-day readmission rates were mainly within the trust target of 11%.

Between July and September 2024, there were 270 on-the-day elective cancellations ranging from 76 to 99 per month. The other most common reasons were emergency slot required, administration error, surgeon unavailable and ward bed unavailable or delayed. We were told 229 of the 270 cancelled had been rescheduled, with an average of 17.379 days to the next operation date. February 2025 saw elective cancelations reduce to 79.

The trust had a target of 85% theatre utilisation. Data provided by the trust showed the average theatres utilisation as 81% between September 2023 and May 2024 and 67% between June 2024 and September 2024 was 67 %

There were 8 patients cancelled for neurosurgery between April to September 2024 and 147 trauma and orthopaedics cases cancelled during the same time period. We were told the volume and urgency of trauma/orthopaedics and neurosurgery patients was discussed at huddles 3 times a day, trust site meetings 4 times a day and at daily trauma meetings.

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.