You are here

Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was established in January 2012 as a result of the acquisition by Basingstoke & North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust of Winchester & Eastleigh Healthcare Trust.

The trust provides a full range of elective and emergency medical and surgical services to a local community of 600,000 patients in Basingstoke, Winchester, Andover and the surrounding areas in Hampshire and West Berkshire. It provides services from Andover War Memorial Hospital, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital and the Royal Hampshire County Hospital. Outpatient and assessment services are provided from Alton, Bordon and Romsey Community hospitals, and the Velmore Centre in Eastleigh.

Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital (BNHH) is one of the acute district hospitals, and is based just outside Basingstoke in North Hampshire. Services provided at BNHH include urgent and emergency care, medical care, surgery, critical care, maternity and gynaecological services, children and young person’s services, end of life care, and outpatient and diagnostic services.

The hospital also provides some specialist services including services for rare or complex illnesses for patients across the UK, including liver cancer, colorectal cancer and pseudomyxoma peritonei (a rare lower abdominal cancer). The purpose built diagnosis and treatment centre (DTC) opened in 2005. The regional haemophilia service is based at BNHH, and they have links with University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust for some specialised services.

BNHH has about 529 beds, and had 57,008 emergency attendances from April 2014-March 2015, and over 297,507 outpatient attendances from May 2014-April 2015.

There are 5124 staff employed by the trust, working across the hospital sites. BNHH site employs approximately 827 WTE clinical staff. They do not outsource for any contracted staff, and non-clinical staff are employed in all of the support functions such as portering, facilities management and catering provision.

We undertook this inspection of Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as part of our comprehensive inspection programme. The Trust is a Foundation Trust, and is deemed as low risk according to our Intelligent Monitoring system (Band 6).

The inspection of BNHH took place on 28 - 31 July, with additional unannounced inspection visits on 13 and 14 August 2015. The full inspection team included CQC senior managers, county managers, inspectors and analysts. Doctors, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, ’experts by experience’ and senior NHS managers also joined this team.

We rated BNHH as overall good. We rated it as ‘outstanding‘ for providing caring services, and good for effective, responsive, well-led care. We rated it as ‘requires improvement’ for safety.

Our key findings were as follows:

Are services safe?

  • Staff were encouraged to report incidents and there was learning from incidents to improve the safety of services locally and across the trust.
  • In diagnostic imaging, staff were confident in reporting ionised radiation medical exposure (IR(ME)R) incidents and followed procedures to report incidents to the radiation protection team and the Care Quality Commission.
  • Clinical areas, such as wards, theatres and clinics were visibly clean with appropriate cleaning schedules.
  • Staff followed infection control procedures and these were monitored, although this was not consistent and in surgery one ward needed to improve its practices.
  • Medicines were appropriately managed and stored. However, fridge temperatures were not being regularly checked and monitored on the surgical wards.
  • Anticipatory medicines (medicines prescribed for the key symptoms in the dying phase ie pain, agitation, excessive respiratory secretions, nausea, vomiting and breathlessness) were prescribed appropriately.
  • Equipment was checked and stored appropriately in most areas but this needed to improve on some medical and surgical wards, specifically for resuscitation equipment.
  • Overall, staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and children.
  • More staff needed to complete mandatory training.
  • Patients’ were assessed and monitored appropriately, for example, risk assessments were complete. However, the early warning score needed to be used consistently in surgery, and a tool was required for outpatients, for patients whose condition might deteriorate.

  • The hospital had a higher than expected number of avoidable harms (pressure ulcers and falls) against their own targets. The trust was taking action to improve this, for example, care bundles were introduced to appropriately assess and treat patients,

  • Critically ill children attending the emergency department were immediately referred to a paediatrician. There was a protocol for the transfer of critically ill children to a specialist care from the Southampton and Oxford retrieval team (SORT). The SORT team would provide specialist staff to support the child during the transfer.

  • Medical staffing levels across the hospital were appropriate. National recommendations were followed, for example, for consultant presence in the emergency department, maternity, critical care and end of life care. There was consultant presence in the hospital over seven days with the exception of surgical services; there was 24 hour consultant cover arrangements across all services. Consultants in children and young people services were working additional sessions because of vacancies with junior doctors at middle grade level. This additional working was not sustainable in the long term.

  • Nursing staffing levels were identified at trust level using an appropriate acuity tool. Planned staffing levels across all areas were higher than minimum recommendations. The hospital had a significant number of vacancies particularly in emergency medicine, medical and older people’s care and surgery. Staffing levels were monitored and action was taken to fill vacancies from bank staff. Agency staff were not used. However, some medical and surgical wards did not always meet safe staffing levels. Nursing staff were coping by working longer hours, sharing staff or staff skills across shifts. Patients on these wards told us their needs were being met. The trust was implementing actions to mitigate for example, by developing skills in health care assistants and having ongoing recruitment campaigns, including employing staff from overseas. However, we found in some areas, patient needs were not being met.

  • Midwifery staffing levels did not meet national recommendations but staff worked flexibly and could provide one to one care for all women in labour.

  • The new regulation, Duty of Candour, states that providers should be open and transparent with people who use services. It sets out specific requirements when things go wrong with care and treatment, including informing people about the incident, providing reasonable support, giving truthful information and an apology. The trust monitored duty of candour through their online incident reporting system. Senior staff we spoke with were aware of duty of candour and talked about the importance of being open and transparent with patients and their families.

Are services effective?

  • Staff were providing care and treatment to patients based on national and best practice guidelines. In some areas guidelines had been unified across the trust for consistency of care.
  • Services were monitoring the standards of care and treatment. Patient outcomes were similar to or better than the England average. There were action plans to address where outcomes were worse when compared to the England average, for example, for stroke rehabilitation.
  • Patients with chest pain were taken to Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital as the designated centre for specialist treatment if possible. The hospital’s performance was better than national average for patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (a type of heart attack) who were seen by a cardiologist or a member of the team and treated on a cardiac ward or unit. The hospital performed below the national average for patients being referred for or had angiography.

  • Patients received good pain relief across all services.
  • Patients, particularly older patients, were supported to ensure their hydration and nutrition needs were met.
  • Staff were supported to access training. Many staff had a high level of competency having undertaken specialty specific qualifications. There was evidence of regular staff appraisal although clinical supervision varied.
  • Staff worked effectively in multidisciplinary teams to centre care around patients. This included working with GPs, community services, other hospitals. There were innovations in electronic records and the use of video conferencing in end of life care that enabled information to be shared about patient’s clinical needs and preferences across the trust, and with community and GP services. However, paediatric inpatient physiotherapy was not sufficient for children and young people with Cystic Fibrosis at the weekends and this was concern.
  • Seven-day services were well developed, particularly for emergency patients. There was support from therapists, pharmacy and diagnostic services was less well developed.

  • Staff had appropriate knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to ensure that patients’ best interests were protected. Guidance was available for staff to follow on the action they should take if they considered that a person lacked mental capacity. Notification of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were correctly submitted to the Commission. However, capacity assessments were not always documented or regularly reviewed in patient care records.
  • ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) forms were not always appropriately completed and did not include, for example, an assessment of the patient’s mental capacity.

Are services caring?

  • Staff were caring and compassionate and treated patients with dignity and respect. There was a culture in the hospital of understanding and responding to patient’s individual needs. This covered clinical and non-clinical staff such as porters and housekeeping staff who recognised the importance of their role in providing good quality care.
  • Patient feedback was overwhelming positive across all services.
  • We observed outstanding care for critical care patients, children and young people, patients having end of life care, and patients attending outpatient and diagnostic imaging services. The staff had an ethos of providing person centred care and developed trusting relationship with patients and their families.
  • Staff maintained patient’s confidentiality, privacy and dignity in all areas, although the layout of bay areas in the AAU and the eye day care unit may have compromised patient’s dignity at times.
  • Patients and their relatives felt involved in their care and treatment, staff provided information and explanations in a way patients could understand. Patients felt that their views and considerations were listened to and acted upon.
  • Records of conversations were detailed on patient records. This meant staff always knew what explanations had been provided and reduced the risk of confusing or conflicting information being given to relatives and patients
  • Patients and their families were supported by staff emotionally to reduce anxiety and concern. There was also support for carers, family and friends for example, from the chaplaincy, bereavement services for patients having end of live care, and counselling support where required.
  • Data from the national surveys demonstrated that the hospital was similar to other trusts. Patients were very satisfied and would recommend the care they received.                        

 

Are services responsive?

  • Services were being planned to respond to increases in demand, staff capacity and patient needs. There was some innovation in models of care, for example, the acute assessment unit. There was also joint work with partners, for example, to in-reach services for psychiatric assessment. Other areas were working on how to increase capacity.

  • Bed occupancy in the hospital was below the England average of 88% although it was higher on surgical wards. It is generally accepted that at 85% level, bed occupancy can start to affect the quality of care provided to patients, and the orderly running of the hospital.

  • The trust was not meeting the national emergency access target for 95% of patients to be admitted, transferred or discharged within 4 hours. Ambulance handovers over 30 minutes were often delayed and patients often had to wait in the emergency department for admissions.
  • Many medical patients were often on outlier wards (a ward that is not specialised in their care) information demonstrates that these patients were regularly assessed. There was only one patient outlier during the inspection.
  • Patient bed moves happened frequently, including at night. Staff were ensuring that patients with lower dependency needs were moved and patients had not expressed concern about their moves.
  • The trust was achieving the 31-day cancer waiting time diagnosis-to-treatment target and the 62-day referral-to-treatment target, although this had not been met in June 2015.
  • The trust was achieving the 18-week referral-to-treatment time target for medical patients and some surgical patients. The target was not being achieved in orthopaedics and ophthalmology.
  • The majority of patient who had cancelled surgical procedures for non-clinical reasons were re-booked for surgery within 28 days.
  • The trust was meeting national waiting times for diagnostic imaging within six week, outpatient appointments within 18 weeks and cancer waiting times for urgent referral appointments within 2 weeks and diagnosis at one month and treatment within two months.
  • The trust cancellation rate for appointments was 10%; the England average was 7%. Many of these clinic cancellations were at short notice. The reasons for this varied and included cancellation for staff sickness, training and annual leave. There was a plan to address this but this was in development. Patients were not appropriately monitored to ensure the timeliness of re-appointments
  • Women were able to make choices about where they would like to deliver their babies. They had access to early pregnancy assessment and their preferred ante-natal clinics. Women in the early stages of labour had access to telephone support.
  • Patient discharge was effectively supported. Patients were regularly reviewed and discharge coordinators worked to improve the discharge of patients with complex care needs. The trust had problems with increasing numbers of delayed transfers of care for community services, and was working with partners to improve this.
  • Support for patients living with dementia was well developed, for example, there was specialist support, appropriate assessment, a sunflower symbol was used and staff had good awareness and training. Support for people with a learning disability needed further development. Although there was support for carers, the hospital needed a flagging system or passport to identify and support patients, and some staff identified the need for further training.
  • The trust offers a number of one stop clinics. The breast unit, for example, offers appointments to patients within two weeks following GP referral. The referrals were initially received into the central booking office and prioritised by consultants. Patients who attended the one stop clinics, would see a clinician, have a biopsy taken and see a radiologist if required. If a cancer diagnosis was suspected, patients were told before leaving the clinic and an appointment given to discuss the outcome and treatment options. This unit provided a responsive service for patients who were anxious in relation to a potential cancer diagnosis.
  • Patients having end of life care were identified by a butterfly symbol so that staff were aware of their needs and those of their family.
  • There was a hospital at home service to deliver care to those patients identified as being in the last days or hours of life. The service was 24 hours and seven days a week. Multidisciplinary team working and innovations in electronic records and the use of video conferencing in end of life care also facilitated rapid assessment and access to equipment.
  • Patients having end of life care had multi-disciplinary care focused on their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Patients could have a rapid discharge to home arranged within 24 hours. However, there were delays to the rapid and fast track discharge processes (within 48 hours) and processes were being improved to meet national standards.
  • All wards we visited provided care for patients in single sex accommodation bays, in line with Department of Health requirements.

  • Complaints were handled appropriately and there was evidence of improvements to services as a result. Some services, however, were not responding to complaints in a timely way.

Are services well-led?

  • All services identified the plans to build a new Critical Treatment Hospital as the overall strategy for the trust, and there were in-depth plans towards this across services. However, some services did not have specific strategies and plans in the short and medium term to respond to priorities. Some consultants identified concerns with the plans for the new hospital.
  • Services had effective clinical governance arrangements to monitor quality, risk and performance. The outpatients department needed to further improve processes to manage risk and quality.
  • Many staff told us overall they had good support from the local clinical leaders and staff engagement was good.
  • Many staff identified the visibility and support of the chief executive of trust.
  • Joint working across Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital and Royal Hampshire County Hospital and Andover War Memorial Hospital varied. This was important to improve standards, share good practice and develop efficient and effective services across the trust. This was well developed in the emergency department, critical care and end of life care.
  • The leadership for end of life care was outstanding. There were robust governance arrangements and an engaged staff culture all of which contributed to driving and improving the delivery of high quality person-centred care. This was an innovative service with a clear vision and supportive leadership and board structure.
  • Patient engagement was mainly through survey feedback however, there was some innovation, for example the use of social media in maternity and ‘through your eyes’ a listening event to surgery.
  • The trust had a WOW Award scheme to recognise outstanding service. Staff could be nominated by patients or their colleagues. Recognition through the WOW Awards had led to high levels of staff satisfaction throughout the service

  • Ideas to innovative and improve services were encouraged. There was participation in research, quality improvement projects, and innovation in developing new roles for staff, such as the Majors practitioners, volunteers caring in dementia, advanced critical care practitioners.

We saw many areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The trust is one of only two designated specialist treatment centres in the country for treatment of Pseudomyxoma. This is a very rare type of cancer that usually begins in the appendix, or in other parts of the bowel, the ovary or bladder. The hospital has treated more than 1000 such cases. The diverse multidisciplinary team has developed the skills to help patients through this extensive treatment, and share their knowledge on international courses and conferences.
  • Through audit, surgeons working at the trust have changed practice world-wide, such as new techniques for the biopsy on operable tumours and the benefits of waiting six weeks after completing chemotherapy before performing liver resection.
  • Every medical and care of elderly ward had an activity coordinator who planned and conducted different activities for patients after consulting them. The activities included a range of things such as arts and craft, music, dance, group lunches and movie time.
  • GP’s had access to electronic information held by the trust. This meant they were able to access electronic discharge summaries with up to date information available about care and treatment patients had received in hospital.
  • A LEGO brick Model, designed by a play leader, was used to prepare children for MRI scans. The model was successful in reducing children’s fears and apprehension. The model had been adopted for use in other hospitals.
  • Once a week the librarian attended the ward round in order to source relevant literature to assist the professional development of staff.
  • Critical care career pathways were developed to promote the development of the nursing team.
  • The critical care unit had innovative grab sheets that detailed the essential equipment to care for each patient in the event the unit had to be evacuated. These included pictures of the essential equipment, so non-clinical staff such as portering staff could help collect the equipment ensuring medical and nursing care of patients was not interrupted.
  • Pregnant women were able to call Labour Line which was the first of its kind introduced in the country. This service involves midwives being based at the local ambulance operations centre. Women who called 999 could discuss their birth plan, make arrangements for their birth and ongoing care. The labour line midwives had information about the availability of midwives at each location and were able to discuss options with women and their partners. Labour Line midwives were able to prioritise ambulances to women in labour if they were considered an emergency. The continuity of care and the rapid discharge of ambulances when they are really needed, have been two of the main benefits to women in labour The Labour line had recently won the Royal College of Midwives Excellence in Maternity Care award for 2015 and they were also awarded second place in the Midwifery Service of the Year Award.
  • The breast care unit is a fully integrated multi-disciplinary unit that was pioneering intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital.
  • The specialist palliative care team provided a comprehensive training programme for all staff involved in delivering end of life care.
  • The cardiac palliative care clinic identified and supported those patients with a non-cancer diagnosis who had been recognised as requiring end of life care.
  • The use of the butterfly initiative in end of life care promoted dignity and respect for the deceased and their relatives.
  • There was strong clinical leadership for the end of life service with an obvious commitment to improving and sustaining care delivery for those patients at the end of their lives.
  • All staff throughout the hospital were dedicated to providing compassionate end of life care.

However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the trust must ensure :

  • Patients in the ED are admitted, transferred or discharged within national target times of four hours.
  • There is an appropriate system to identifying patients with a learning disability.
  • Nurse staffing levels comply with safer staffing levels guidance.
  • Resuscitation equipment is appropriately checked, sealed and tagged.
  • Medicines are appropriately managed and stored in surgery.
  • Controlled drugs in liquid form are managed and stored appropriately in all the medical wards.
  • The early warning score is used consistently in surgery and a system is developed for use in outpatients.
  • Venous thromb-oembolism assessment occurs on admission for surgical patients.
  • Resuscitation equipment is appropriately checked and items are sealed and tagged.

In addition the trust should ensure:

  • Uncontrolled access to, and observation of, the resuscitation room from short stay is prevented.
  • X-ray warning lights for the resuscitation room work appropriately.
  • There is a named lead nurse for children in the ED as per Royal College of Paediatric and Child Health guidelines (2012).
  • Staff receive appropriate training and there is a formal process in place for staff to follow to meet requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • The separate children’s area in the ED is visible in the main department, and access in the main waiting room is restricted.
  • Staff using the relative’s room in the ED have appropriate security, such as a viewing window in the door and/or panic alarm.
  • Staff maintain infection control procedures at all times.
  • Medicines are appropriately managed and stored in maternity and gynaecology.
  • Staff use and appropriately sign up to date approved Patient Group Directions (PGDs) in the eye unit in the ED.
  • Continued action to significantly reduce the incidence of pressure ulcer and falls.
  • Safety Thermometer audits to allow staff, patients and their relatives to assess how the ward has performed in Maternity and gynaecology.
  • An early warning score system is developed for use in outpatients.
  • Equipment in the Maternity unit is checked and documented as per trust policy.
  • The level of staff undertaking safeguarding adults and child training needs to meet trust targets.
  • The trust target of 80% for mandatory training is met.
  • Records on the gynaecology ward are stored securely to prevent unauthorised access.
  • The availability of medical notes for outpatient clinics continues to improve and this should be audited.
  • National guidelines are followed when administering intravascular contrast in the Candover Unit.
  • Staffing is improved in radiology to decrease high workloads.
  • Staff in maternity have appropriate training to complete the new assessment booklet.
  • There are arrangements in place to support lone working in the mortuary.
  • Clinical audit programmes continue to develop.
  • Nursing staff receive formal clinical supervision in line with professional standards.
  • Children’s discharge summaries are completed within 48 hours.
  • Review the Critical Care outreach service at night.
  • There is guidance around the frequency and timeliness of bed moves, so that patients are not moved late at night and several times.
  • Review single sex bay arrangements on AAU and facilities in the eye day care unit to ensure patients privacy and dignity is not compromised.
  • There is a critical care rehabilitation pathway.
  • Paediatric critical care guidelines are reviewed and updated.
  • There is a clear process and assurances for critical care staff who have been redeployed elsewhere in the hospital to return to the unit when a patient is admitted to the critical care unit.
  • Children with cystic fibrosis are supported by appropriate paediatric physiotherapy.
  • Information for patients is available in accessible formats.
  • All DNACPR order forms are consistently completed accurately and in line with trust policy.
  • Review the process for ‘fast-track’ discharge to meet the standards for 90% standard to be discharged with the right level of care within 48 hours if there preferred place of death is home.
  • There are appropriate processes and monitoring arrangements to reduce the number of cancelled outpatient appointments and ensure patients have timely and appropriate follow up.
  • Complaints are responded to within the trust target of 25 days.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2015

Effective

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 12 November 2015

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

Checks on specific services

Maternity and gynaecology

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

Maternity and gynaecology services were rated ‘good’ for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led services.

Nursing and midwifery staff were encouraged to report incidents and robust systems were in place to ensure lessons information and learning was disseminated trust wide. There had been one Never event (a serious, largely preventable patient safety incident which should not occur if the available preventative measures had been implemented) in the maternity service in May 2015.

We saw information to support the reason for the never event had been comprehensively investigated and systems were in place to minimise the risk of recurrence.

Midwives completed comprehensive risk assessment processes from the initial booking appointment through to post-natal care. Identified risks were recorded and acted upon across the service.

All areas of the service we visited were visibly clean,and systems were in place to ensure nurses, midwives and domestic staff adhered to trust infection control policies and procedures.

The gynaecology ward participated in the NHS Safety Thermometer. The NHS Safety Thermometer is a local improvement tool for measuring, monitoring and analysing patient harms and 'harm free' care. The ward conducted monthly audits in respect to patient falls, pressure ulcers, catheters and urinary tract infections. However, information about the audits was not displayed. It is considered best practice to display the results of the Safety Thermometer audits to allow staff, patients and their relatives to assess how the ward has performed.

Care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation and nationally recognised evidence based guidance.

Policies and guidelines were developed in line with the RCOG, Safer childbirth (2007) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The guidelines had been unified across the trust to ensure all services worked to the same guidelines.

Women had access to a variety of methods for pain relief throughout the service. Staff received further training and support in order for them to develop and maintain their competencies. The supervisor to midwife ratio was 1:15.

The funded mid-wife to birth ratio was on average 1:30 which met the trust national and local benchmark. However, there were times when the midwife to birth ratio was 1:32-34. The England average was 1:29. Shortfalls in midwifery staff were due to maternity leave and sickness. Midwives had consistently been able to deliver one to one care in labour and there was no evidence to support harm had occurred to women when there had been a shortfall in midwifery staffing levels. The 103 hours dedicated consultant cover exceeded the recommendation of RCOG, Safer Childbirth (2007).

Women consistently gave us positive feedback about the care and treatment they had received. We observed they were treated with dignity and respect and were included in decision making about their care. Women were able to make choices about where they would like to deliver their babies. Women and their families, had access to sufficient emotional support when required.

The gynaecological service met the referral to treatment time target of 18 weeks.

Translation services were available, and some midwives had undergone further specialist training to support women with additional needs such as learning disabilities and drug and alcohol addictions.

There was a clear strategy and vision for the service which was focussed towards the development of a new hospital. Staff and the members of the community had been consulted about the changes to service provision and had been involved in the architectural design of the new building. Short term strategies had been developed to ensure staff were ready for the move and guidelines were embedded across the sites. However, there had not been short and medium term plans for service development.

There were comprehensive risk, quality and governance structures and systems were in place to share information and learning. Staff across the service described an open culture and felt well supported by their managers. Staff continually told us they felt “proud” to work for the trust and that their successes had been acknowledged and praised by the trust board.

Medical care (including older people’s care)

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

We found that medical care (including older people’s care) was ‘good’ for effective ,caring, responsive and well led and ‘required improvement’ to be safe.

Process and procedures were followed to report incidents and monitor risks. Staff were encouraged to report incidents. Themes from incidents were discussed at ward meetings to share learning. The environment was clean and equipment was well maintained. Staff had good access to equipment needed for pressure area care. They were able to order bariatric equipment within 24hours.

Patients whose condition deteriorated were appropriately escalated. The incidence of pressure ulcers and falls was higher than expected. Action was being taken on ensuring harm free care.

Safeguarding protocols were in place and staff were familiar with these.

However, most medicines were managed appropriately for safe use. However, the controlled drugs on the Acute Assessment Unit (AAU) were out of date. Infection control procedures were not always followed on all wards, and resuscitation equipment was not appropriately checked, stored and up to date on all wards.

There was a significant shortage of nursing staff on the medical and care of elderly wards. The trust was trying to use bank nurses where shortages were identified. However, we found that safer staffing levels at night were not always met on F1,F3 and E2 wards. Staff on the wards told us this was a risk to patients because these wards had elderly patients with higher risks of falls and patients living with dementia. Medical staffing, across the medical services, was appropriate and covered medical outliers well.

There were appropriate procedures to provide effective care. Staff provided care to patients based on national guidance, such as National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Patient outcomes overall were similar to or better than England average for diabetes care and patients who may of had a heart attack. Where outcomes were worse than the England average, for example, for stroke rehabilitation, there was an action plan to address areas for improvement.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that staff had the necessary skills and competence to look after patients. Patients had access to services seven days a week and were cared for by a multidisciplinary team working in a coordinated way. When patients lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves, staff acted in accordance with legal requirements. However, the capacity assessments were not always documented or regularly reviewed in patient care records.

Staff had received statutory and mandatory training, and described good access to professional development opportunities.

Patients received compassionate care that respected their privacy and dignity. They told

us they felt involved in decision making about their care. We found staff were caring and

compassionate. Without exception, patients we spoke with praised staff for their empathy,

kindness and caring.

Bed occupancy in the trust was below the England average. It is generally accepted that at 85% level, bed occupancy can start to affect the quality of care provided to patients, and the orderly running of the hospital. There was one medical outlier at the time of our inspection. Hospital data demonstrated the hospital routinely had medical outliers. Staff told us these patients were regularly assessed and followed by a team of medical consultant and junior doctors. Patient bed moves happened frequently, including at night. Staff were ensuring that patients with lower dependency needs were moved and patients had not expressed concern about their moves.

The trust was achieving the 31-day cancer waiting time diagnosis-to-treatment target and the 62-day referral-to-treatment target, although this had not been met in June 2015. The medical services were consistently achieving the 18-week referral-to-treatment time target against a national target 90%.

Patient discharges were discussed by medical teams daily. Discharge arrangements were supported by discharge coordinators. The hospital had an increasing number of delayed transfers of care to community services. The trust was working with its partners to improve this.

Support was available for patients living with dementia and patients with a learning disability. We were given examples of the trust working closely with other local mental health NHS teams to meet the needs of patients in vulnerable circumstances.

The medical service had identified a long-term strategy and priorities around improving the services. There were effective governance arrangements and staff felt supported by service and trust management. Lessons from incidents and complaints were usually shared within the staff groups.

The culture within medical services was caring and supportive. Staff were actively engaged and innovation and learning was supported. There was good local leadership at ward level. Staff were focused on achieving key outcomes and these were linked to the trust’s vision and strategy.

Urgent and emergency services (A&E)

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The emergency department (ED) was rated good for providing safe, effective, caring and well-led services. The service was rated as ‘requires improvement’ for responsive services.

The department had a culture of safety, and incidents were reported and actions were taken in response. The department was visibly clean. The management of some medicines needed to improve.

Patients gave us positive feedback about the care they received, and the attitude of staff. Patients were treated with dignity, respect and compassion. Patients and their relatives told us they felt involved in decision-making about their care.

The service needed to improve its’ responsiveness. The hospital was not always meeting the national emergency access target for 95% of patients to be admitted, transferred or discharged from A&E within four hours, and this was mainly down to a wait for a bed elsewhere in the hospital. However, the department met this standard in five months of 2014. Patients were, however, initially assessed very quickly, and treated within standard times.

There was good support for patients with mental health conditions and patients living with dementia, but staff required more training to provide a high level of appropriate support to patients with a learning disability.

The numbers of staff attending safeguarding training needed to increase. Staff also required a greater understanding of deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).

The emergency department was well-led by the senior nurses and doctors. The departmental strategy and vision was understood by staff. The culture within the department was one of strong, open leadership, mutual trust and respect.

Surgery

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

Surgery services were rated as ‘requires improvement’ for providing safe care and ‘good’ for being effective, caring, responsive and well led.

Procedures to ensure safe care required improvement. Resuscitation equipment and the storage of medicines in fridges needed to be appropriately checked in line with trust policy. Some patients did not have their medication at the required time. There were not always adequate numbers of nursing staff to meet the assessed needs of patients.

Incidents were reported and appropriately investigated and action plans were developed to improve staff learning and services. Compliance with the Five Steps to Safer Surgical checklist was 95 - 99%. The early warning score was not consistently being used to identify patients whose condition might deteriorate. Surgical staffing levels were appropriate.

Care and treatment was provided based on national guidelines. The surgical directorate took part in a number of local and national audits and outcomes in surgery were similar to or better than the England average. Patients received appropriate pain relief and nutritional support.

There was good multi-disciplinary team working to centre care around patients. Staff had good access to training and received clinical supervision and annual appraisals. Seven day services were developing. Consultant led care was provided with 24 hour cover arrangements. Some multidisciplinary support was available from therapists for colorectal and orthopaedic patients over the weekend.

Patients were consented appropriately and correctly. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The surgical services provided care in a compassionate way. Patients and their relatives told us staff understood their needs and treated them with sensitivity. Patients told us they were involved in their care and treatment and staff provided information in a way they could understand.

The hospital was achieving the referral to treatment time target of 18 weeks in some specialities; the target was not being achieved in orthopaedic and ophthalmology. Most patients who had their surgery cancelled on the day were rebooked for surgery within 28 days. The service was reviewing its capacity to identify ways in which service demands could be better managed.

Support was available for patients living with dementia and patients with a learning disability. The service was taking part in a campaign in raising awareness and promoting better care for people living with dementia.

Complaints were handled in line with the trust’s policy although many were not dealt with in a timely manner. Information about complaints was not displayed in ward areas

There were good leadership at all a local level. Staff felt supported by the multi-disciplinary team, joint working and strong clinical leadership. Staff felt supported by managers who were considered to be visible, approachable and knowledgeable and were highly respected by their staff.

There was an effective governance structure to manage risk and quality. Staff were passionate to deliver quality care and an excellent patient experience.

The trust has continued to develop their engagement with patients including initiatives such as ‘through your eyes’ listening event’, which was developed by the division and introduced across the trust. The service took part in research and national projects and innovative practice.

Intensive/critical care

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

We rated critical care services as ‘good’ for providing safe, effective, responsive and well-led services. The service was outstanding for caring.

There were areas of good, outstanding and innovative practice in the critical care services. Once a week, the librarian attended the ward round in order to source relevant literature to assist the professional development of staff.

To promote the development of the nursing team the senior nursing team and clinical educator had taken the initiative to develop a critical care career pathway for grades 5, 6 and & 7. The nursing team was split into four teams. In response to difficulties recruiting middle grade (registrar) doctors, the unit had developed a two year course in Advanced Critical Care Practice (ACCP), in conjunction with Southampton University.

There were effective risk management processes in place with processes to ensure learning from incidents was shared across the critical care units at both BNHH and RHCH.

Staffing levels and qualifications were in line with national guidance. This meant patients received care and treatment from staff who had the necessary specialist skills and experience.

Treatment and care followed current evidence-based guidelines with the exception of outreach services and critical care rehabilitation services. The risk to patients associated with not having these services was being monitored,and action was being taken to try to introduce these services. The critical care services participated in national and local audits and there were good outcomes for patients. Staff had effective training, supervision and appraisal and there was good multidisciplinary working to ensure that patients’ needs were met.

Data showed that outcomes for patients were comparable with those of similar critical care units.

There was strong leadership of the critical care service across the trust and in the units at BNHH. There was a culture of mutual support and respect, with staff willing to help the unit at RHCH when they were short staffed. Innovative ideas and approaches to care were encouraged and supported.

Services for children & young people

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

We rated services for children and young people services as ‘good’ for providing safe, effective, responsive and well-led services. The service was outstanding for caring.

Incidents were reported and appropriately investigated. Lessons were learnt to support improvements. Staff had an understanding to be open and transparent when things go wrong and the new regulation of Duty of Candour was being followed. Clinical areas were visibly clean and staff were following infection control procedures. Medicines were appropriately managed and stored, and equipment was available and regularly tested to ensure it was fit for use.

Staff took steps to safeguard children. Children’s risks were appropriately assessed and procedures were followed to identify if their condition might deteriorate. Children with mental health problems were, however, not always assessed and supported by mental health professionals in a timely way.

Action was being taken to ensure safe nurse staffing levels. Consultants were covering middle grade doctor vacancies but this practice was not sustainable in the long term

Care and treatment was based on national guidance and evidence based practice. The services was monitoring clinical standards and participated in local and national audits. The trust scored better than the England average for diabetes and asthma outcomes.

Children and young people had good pain relief, nutrition and hydration. The hospital had received the level 3 “Baby Friendly” Accreditation in the neonatal unit in October 2013 which supports parents to be partners in care.

Staff had appropriate training and were highly competent. Staff worked effectively in multi-disciplinary teams and with external providers to provide a holistic approach to care. The hospital, however, did not have sufficient inpatient paediatric physiotherapists to effectively support patients with cystic fibrosis at the weekends.

Seven day services had developed for medical staff and consultants were available seven days a week.

Staff were providing a compassionate and caring service. Feedback from people who use the service, and those who are close to them, was overwhelmingly positive. Children and their parents spoke of staff going “above and beyond” to provide care and keep them well informed, and of an “excellent” service. Children and their parents were involved in their care and treatment. Play leaders supported children to understand their care and reduce anxiety.

The service was being planned around managing service demands and responding to the needs and preferences of children, young people and their families. There was good access to the service, with open access for children with chronic conditions and those who had recently been discharged. There were good links with the community child health team, based in the hospital, leading to continuity and an integrated care approach. The service was meeting the needs of children with long-term chronic and life-limiting conditions by working in collaboration with other hospitals and hospices.

The trust needed to work with its partners to ensure there was a service level agreement for children and young people with mental health needs. There was support for children with a learning disability.

Governance processes appropriately managed quality and risks issues, although we did not see how risks were being escalated to the trust board. Staff were positive about the local leadership of services and demonstrated they were passionate and committed to delivering high quality, patient focused care.

There was evidence of cross site working, for example, to streamline services and share good practice although it was acknowledged that more work was required to develop consistent service across the trust.

Children and young people were encouraged to feedback ideas to improve the service

End of life care

Outstanding

Updated 12 November 2015

End of life care at this hospital was “outstanding”. We rated it ‘good’ for safe, effective and responsive services and outstanding for caring and well-led services.

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse. Reliable systems and process were in place to ensure the delivery of safe care.

Care and treatment was delivered in line with local and national guidance and, a holistic patient-centred approach was evident.

Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Feedback from patients and their families was mostly positive and we observed many examples of outstanding compassionate care.

The leadership for end of life care was strong. There were robust governance arrangements and an engaged staff culture all of which contributed to driving and improving the delivery of high quality person-centred care.

This was an innovative service with a clear vision and a strong focus on patient centred care which was supported by a board structure that believed in the importance of excellent end of life care for the local population.

There was good multidisciplinary working, staff were appropriately qualified and had good access to a comprehensive training programme dedicated to end of life care. However we were concerned about the uptake of mandatory training by the specialist palliative care team and the low staffing levels in the mortuary.

Patient outcomes were routinely monitored and where these were lower than expected comprehensive plans had been put in place to improve. However, ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions were not always made appropriately and in line with national guidance.

Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect and feedback from patients and their families were consistently positive.

Patient’s needs were mostly met through the way end of life care was organised and delivered. However, the rapid discharge of those patients expressing a wish to die at home did not always happen in a timely way. The specialist palliative care team identified rapid discharge as a challenge. We saw where recommendations and actions to address these audit results had been made and results had been discussed at board level. There was an identified shortage of side rooms for those patients identified as being in the last hours of life.

Outpatients

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The outpatient and diagnostics imaging services were ‘good‘for safe, responsive services, and well-led services. It was ‘outstanding’ for the delivery of a caring service.

Staff were encouraged to report incidents and the learning was shared to improve services. In diagnostic imaging, staff were confident in reporting ionised radiation medical exposure (IR(ME)R) incidents and followed procedures to report incidents to the radiation protection team and the care quality commission.

The environments were visibly clean and staff followed infection control procedures. Equipment was well maintained and medicines were appropriately managed and stored. Most records were available for clinics and, if not available, temporary files and test results from the electronic patient record were used. Patients were assessed and observations were performed, where appropriate. However, there was not a tool in use to identify patient’s whose condition might deteriorate in outpatients. Interventional radiology there was evidence of the WHO checklist being completed and patient protocols in place. However, in the Candover Unit national guidelines for interventional radiology were not always followed regarding the availability of specific staff to be available in an emergency.

Nurse staffing levels were appropriate as there were few vacancies. Radiographer vacancies were higher and they reported a heavy workload. There was an ongoing recruitment plan.

There was evidence of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines being adhered to in rheumatology and ophthalmology. However, there was not a local audit programme to monitor clinical standards. Staff had access to training and had annual supervision but did not have formal clinical supervision.

Staff followed consent procedures but did not have an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which ensures that decisions are made in patients’ best interests.

Patients consistently told us that they had experienced a good standard of care from staff across outpatients and diagnostic imaging services. We observed compassionate, caring interactions from nursing and radiography staff. Patients told us that they were included in the decision making regarding their care and treatment and staff recognised when a patient required extra support to be able to be included in understanding their treatment plans.

There was some evidence of service planning to meet people’s needs. For example, the breast unit offered access to one stop clinics where patients could see a clinician, have a biopsy and see a radiologist if required. National waiting times were met for outpatient appointments, cancer referrals and treatment and diagnostic imaging. However, the trust had a higher number of cancelled clinics, many of which were at short notice. The reasons for this varied and included cancellation for staff sickness, training and annual leave. There was a plan to address this but this was in development. Patients were not reviewed to ensure the timeliness of re-appointments for their condition.

There was good support for patients with a learning disability or living with dementia. Patients whose first language might not be English had access to interpreters although some staff were not aware of how to access this service. The service received very few complaints and concerns were resolved locally. Staff were not aware of complaints across the trust or the learning from complaints.

The outpatient department had a strategy in development. There were plans to deliver, local consultant led services, including more one stop, nurse led and complex procedure clinics for outpatient services. Staff were not aware of how the strategy would develop in their departments. The hospital had plans to address issues regarding clinic cancellations. In diagnostic imaging there was an action plan to increase the skill mix of staff, the capacity of services and service integration across sites. This had had yet to be considered at divisional and trust board levels and interim actions were not specified.

Governance processes required further development in the outpatient department to monitor risks and quality although these were well developed in diagnostic imaging.

Staff were not clear about the overall vision and values of the trust but told us that the patient experience and the provision of high quality care was their main concern. Nurses and radiographers spoke highly of their immediate line managers and told us they worked in strong, supportive teams which they valued.

There were some examples of local innovation and improvement to services. The breast unit had fully integrated to provide a coordinated service across trust sites. In diagnostic imaging, a staff representative role was being introduced following to support and implement positive changes within the department that staff members themselves had recommended.

Public and patient engagement occurred through feedback such as surveys and comment cards.