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

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, we rated this key question as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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

Staff offered patients options for care, support and treatment and helped patients feel empowered to make decisions about how this was delivered. This included making reasonable adjustments if patients met the criteria for the service.

Staff worked with patients when their needs changed to consider the care and treatment options that best met their changing needs. Staff responded to changes in patients after their surgery and when patients’ needs changed. For example, staff adjusted patient pain assessments during the first 24 hours on the ward and adjusted their care plans for any new care needs.

Staff completed care plans that looked at patient needs and preferences. Staff delivered care in line with care plans and records of care reflected this. Care plans reflected physical and emotional needs.

Warning markers were used to indicate if a patient had extra needs or was vulnerable. The markers were visible on screen and notes could be typed next to a patient’s name to indicate any concerns. For example, a patient with diabetes or other comorbidities, would have an indicator by their name.

The trust provided dementia awareness training for clinical staff and dementia friends information sessions for non-clinical staff. The trust also provided additional training on learning disabilities and mental health. During the inspection we saw that 94.4% of staff had completed the training. This had improved since the last inspection.

All patients located in the waiting areas received a leaflet that gave some simple information for patients and those waiting for family members to be seen. There were visiting times for wards, Wi-Fi password information, important telephone numbers and a reminder to tell staff about any concerns.

Translation services were available to patients whose first language was not English and staff were aware of how to access the service. If interpreters were required, this was identified during pre-operative assessments and then booked to suit.

Chaplaincy services were available to patients 24 hours a day. Patients with different cultural or religious needs could request support as required. In most cases these requirements would be discussed at the preoperative assessment and staff told us it would be noted in the care plan or general patient notes.

Patient care and treatment was accessible, prompt and in line with evidence-based practice. Reasonable adjustments were made to ensure equal access to the service. Staff took account of both physical needs and cognitive needs including specific fears and preferences associated with healthcare conditions. This included learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder and neurodiverse needs. Managers and staff had training on the awareness of these needs. Managers highlighted their private rooms would be used, which would be more suitable for patients who needed a quieter environment for their recovery.

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

Staff understood the health and social care needs of patients by ensuring their surgery was suitable and within the inclusion criteria of the service.

We saw examples where the trust had considered not only the needs of local people but provided services for patients throughout England and Wales.

When a patient was supported by more than 1 service, staff worked in a collaborative way to make sure care was joined up. Staff worked with staff teams from their neighbouring NHS trust. This included teams from tissue viability, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy. Managers and staff acted when discharge needs changed from their pre-assessment.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available to patients through the trust’s website and leaflets. The information was accessible and followed accessible information standard guidelines which included font enlargement, Braille, and translation services including British Sign Language. There were some staff within the service that could speak Welsh, and staff would speak to patients in Welsh, if it was their preferred language.

Managers provided information in line with information governance policies. This included security and access considerations and followed general data protection regulations (GDPR). Managers ensured compliance by completing a data security and protection toolkit to ensure compliance with GDPR and other relevant laws.

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.

Information was available for patients on how to raise concerns or make a complaint. There were posters on the wards, waiting areas and around the hospital publicising the complaints process.

We also saw leaflets in the waiting areas providing information on how to make a complaint and contained the details of the patient advice and liaison service.

The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, and shared these with all staff. Complaints were discussed at quality improvement meetings and learning from complaints was discussed at staff safety huddles and staff meetings. We saw information regarding complaints was shared with staff in regular meetings and displayed on noticeboards and in staff areas.

Lessons learned from complaints were identified, we saw learning had been discussed and an action plan had been written to address concerns locally.

Patients and their family understood how to give feedback or complain about their care. Managers provided complaints data from December 2024 to April 2025 which showed 49 complaints had been reported so far for the whole service. The service had a tolerance target of 8 complaint per month; the latest value was 9 for April 2025. The trust was planning a ‘deep dive’ into the reason for the increase. Learning would be identified for each complaint, and any themes would be shared at ward level and through the patient experience committee.

Managers supported people to give their feedback to a complaint. Managers acknowledged written complaints within 48 hours and answered in full within 30 working days. Where this was not possible, a further letter would be sent to explain why.

People felt confident in the service to take the right action if they raised a concern or complaint. This included looking into the issue thoroughly, communicating what was happening, being open about what had been found out and what the outcome was.

The service worked with people to agree solutions to the concerns they raised and measured the impact of the changes made. Staff accepted feedback as an opportunity to improve the service, and the quality of care people received.

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

Surgical patients were usually booked a bed at pre-operative assessment, following review by a surgeon and anaesthetist. Patients were admitted to the hospital through the admission unit and supported in preparation for a procedure.

The process for booking beds for elective surgical patients worked well and was managed through the electronic bed booking system.

Patients would be assessed and prepared for theatre and located in a room or “pod” to wait for their slot in theatre. Each room had a number which generally corresponded to the number of the theatre to be used for the operation.

The potential need for a high dependency bed was discussed at pre-operative assessment and consultants would risk assess the procedure to determine if a bed needed to be booked.

Managers held weekly theatre planning meetings to ensure theatres were optimised. This meant that scheduling ensured any cancellation of surgery could be filled quickly by a patient who needed it. However, managers acknowledged that some cancellations could not be avoided. There were 41 reported theatre cancellations for April 2025. This represented 4.5% of the total theatre activity. The primary reason for cancellation was the patients not being medically fit. There were clear action plans looking at the cancellations on the day of surgery.

Baschurch day unit was suitably equipped to care for patients if they needed a longer recovery period or transfer to a ward was delayed.

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.

Staff had a good understanding of patients that used the service and were most likely to experience inequality in their care. Staff completed equality, diversity and inclusion training as part of their mandatory training.

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.

Patients were supported to plan for life changes following surgery if this was suitable. Patients were given a cooling off period before starting their care to make sure the surgery was the correct decision for their medical and psychological needs. Staff ensured patients were informed about all aspects of the surgery and this started at the booking stage of their care. Staff approached these conversations in a sensitive manner and supported patients to feel as well as possible prior to their surgery.