You are here

Russells Hall Hospital Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Russells Hall Hospital using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.


Other CQC inspections of services

Community & mental health inspection reports for Russells Hall Hospital can be found at The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust.

Inspection carried out on 5 December 2017

During a routine inspection

Our inspection of the trust covered only this hospital and community services. What we found is summarised within the overall summary.

Inspection carried out on 26 and 27 March 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this comprehensive inspection as part of the new hospital inspection programme and as a follow up to the Keogh review which took place in 2013.  Of the 14 trusts inspected under the Keogh review for the quality and safety of their services, The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust was one of only three trusts that were not put into special measures.  That review identified concerns regarding:

  • governance arrangements
  • the need to embed a culture of learning from incidents
  • how the trust uses and reviews mortality data
  • the system for bed management and patient flows
  • embedding patient experience in the organisation’s learning and strategy
  • staffing levels and skills mix
  • safety and equipment checks
  • pressure ulcer care.

Before the inspection conducted in March 2014, the Trust was identified in CQC’s intelligent monitoring system as a priority band 4 Trust.  There are six bands within the monitoring system so this Trust had a relatively lower risk.

We noted that the trust’s action plan to address the concerns following the Keogh review had been put into place and signed off.

Our inspection of The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust included Russells Hall Hospital, Corbett Outpatient Centre and Dudley Guest Outpatient Centre.  

The announced inspection took place between 26 and 27 March 2014, and unannounced inspection visits took place in the two weeks following this visit.  

Overall, this trust was found to require improvement, although we rated it good in terms of having caring staff, and effective services.

We saw much support for the trust, both from the public and from the local health economy.

We saw a trust that was a considerable way along its improvement journey and saw many areas of strong development. Whilst some of the core service areas within the trust required improvements in leadership, we found the executive team and the trust board had a clear focus on improvement and as such we rated this trust as good for its overall leadership.

The improvements required by the trust were within the grasp of the trust and its leaders. We were confident that these could be achieved quickly.Key findings related to the following:

  • The trust’s staff are seen as highly caring by many of the patients we spoke to and praised the staff for ‘going the extra mile’.
  • The trust’s leadership team is seen as highly effective by the staff; and is recognised to be clearly in touch with the experience of patients and the work of the staff.
  • Staff value the Dudley Group as a place to work and a team spirit is clearly evident.
  • The trust has responded well to the Keogh review in 2013.
  • There are a number of areas of good practice in the trust, which should be encouraged. Staff feel able to develop their own ideas and have confidence that the trust will support them.
  • The emergency department (A&E) is busy and overstretched. There remain challenges in the flow of patients, but much of this relates to flow across the rest of the hospital. Only a small proportion relates to the emergency department itself.
  • The trust does not always follow its own policy in relation to DNACPR (do not attempt resuscitation) notices.
  • The ophthalmology clinics require review to ensure that all patients are followed up as required and that there is capacity for these clinics.
  • The trust must review its capacity in phlebotomy clinics as this is seen as insufficient.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Inspection carried out on 16 July 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

A pharmacist inspector inspected the hospital following some information of concern that we received around the management of medicines. We looked at the medicine management systems on the Emergency Admission Unit (EAU) and ward C8. We also visited the pharmacy department.

We found that arrangements were in place to ensure that medicines were managed safely.

Inspection carried out on 19, 27 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected wards B1, B2, B3, A4, C7, the Emergency Assessment Unit (EAU) and Radiology.

We found that people received care that met their needs. We saw and were told that staff were responsive and provided people with appropriate support. People we spoke to on the different wards and units were generally happy with the care, support, and treatment they received. One person said, "I have had good treatment, I couldn’t ask for better. They tell me everything they’re doing."

We found that appropriate support was offered to ensure that people received the nutritional meals and fluids that they needed. There are planned changes to improve the way that food and drinks are offered and served which should improve people’s satisfaction with the meals offered.

Arrangements were in place for the safe handling of medicines.

Most staff were complimentary and shared examples of how they were supported by their managers and teams. One staff member said, "I am proud to be working for this trust."

We found that systems were in place to monitor the service quality by the executive team, and at ward and department level respectively. This meant that shortfalls were identified so that improvements could be made.

We found that people’s complaints and comments were taken seriously and escalated when appropriate. The complaints were analysed to look at trends, for changes to be implemented. One person we spoke with said, “I have no complaints about this hospital."

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We completed a review at Russells Hall Hospital in December 2011. We found good standards of cleanliness and hygiene at the hospital but identified high rates of Clostridium Difficile infections. Whilst the trust had already taken a number of actions, we asked the trust to identify and deliver further actions to improve the management and prevention of these infections.

Since the last review, we have continued to monitor the trust and progress against their action plan. This review has been completed in response to the trust confirming that they were now compliant with this standard.

We did not speak to people as part of this follow up review. We received information from the trust and other bodies monitoring the trust. We found that the number of infections had reduced since November 2011, with lower than expected numbers per month. The trust has established ongoing practice and review systems to ensure that the management of prevention of these infections continues to be monitored closely.

Inspection carried out on 18 September 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Termination of Pregnancy Services

We did not speak to people who used this service as part of this review. We looked at a random sample of medical records. This was to check that current practice ensured that no treatment for the termination of pregnancy was commenced unless two certificated opinions from doctors had been obtained.

Inspection carried out on 11 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We planned this review to check that improvements had been made following our visit to the trust in February 2011. We had also been told about concerns with an increase in the number of people who had Clostridium difficile. This is an infection which may cause people to experience diarrhoea.

There has been a delay in producing this report as we were waiting for additional information from the trust on infection control. The trust have worked with us and have kept us informed of developments and changes.

We spoke with 44 people who were using the service or their relatives. We spoke with 22 members of staff of various roles and grades. We visited the accident and emergency department, the emergency assessment unit, the isolation ward and the trauma and orthopaedic ward.

People told us that staff had told them what was happening, so they were fully aware of what investigations or treatments they were waiting for and what their treatment would be. Information was available for people to read if they chose to.

People told us that they were happy with the care that they had received at the hospital. They said “I could not have been treated any better anywhere, its all first class” and “I have been treated above and beyond the call of duty”.

We saw that a number of improvements had been made to the diet and fluids that people received. People told us that they were given choices about meals and drinks so that they received things they liked. Some people told us they would like more variety.

The environment was clean and people we spoke to confirmed that this was what they had experienced when they used the services available.

We saw that new mattresses had been purchased in the emergency assessment areas and one person told us “It is really comfortable”.

People told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to; however people we spoke to told us that they did not have any complaints. One person said “If I wanted to complain I would go to the chief executive, but I have no complaints here”.

Inspection carried out on 25 January 2011

During a routine inspection

During our visit on 25 January 2011, we spoke to people receiving a service at Russells Hall Hospital. People were mostly positive about their experiences of care and treatment. They told us that they felt they were treated with dignity and respect. The majority of people we spoke to told us that staff explained things to them and that they were kept informed and were involved in decisions. Some people in the accident and emergency department said that they had not been told what was happening and this could be improved. People told us that consent had been sought and different care and treatment options had been explained to them. People told us that the staff were caring and friendly and that the hospital was clean and tidy.

People told us:

“I’ve not been told what is happening but it’s really busy”

“I’ve been in and out a lot recently, can’t fault them”

“Treatment very good here”

“Staff very friendly”

“Staff are always washing their hands”

“My care was discussed and information was clear”

“The most positive thing is that I know that when there are hiccups they will be sorted out and I will be listened to”

The Trust also asks patients for their views and experiences of care on a regular basis, and we looked at the analysis of these surveys. Between October and December 2010, 507 surveys had been completed. One of the questions was about peoples experience of the service, 382 said ‘great’, 108 people said ‘satisfactory’ and 13 people commented ‘poor’.