Northampton General 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 patients’ care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on the best available evidence. We assessed 3 quality statements.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good.

Staff did not always ensure patients were at the center of their care and treatment choices and that it was decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. Inpatients did not always receive care in inpatient wards designed to care for patients with their conditions and the service did not always ensure patients information was stored securely. However, staff mostly obtained information about patients’ communication needs and ensured these were met. Patients could access care, treatment, and support when they needed to.

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.

Staff did not always ensure patients were at the center of their care and treatment choices and that it was decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

We reviewed the notes of a patient who had been admitted to the hospital on 17 February 2025 and had been admitted to the Walter Tull Ward. The patient was unable to communicate verbally due to their condition. When we reviewed the patient’s records on 18 February 2025, we found there had been no attempt to adopt a person-centred approach to ensure effective communication and understanding of their needs. Staff had not used the patient passport to ensure effective communication was applied.

We spoke with 6 patients as part of our pathway tracking methodology and the feedback we received was mixed. Patients spoke positively about the care they had received but all 6 patients spoke of spending a prolonged time in the emergency department and having moved wards several times.

Staff told us it was more difficult to arrange complex discharges for patients who had a mental health condition, which met the preference of patients and their next of kin. We observed ward rounds and board rounds and noted that reference was not always made to ensure relevant relatives/next of kin were kept informed.

The service collected and monitored patients’ experience data. An NHS Friends and Family test summary report from January 2025 showed the satisfaction scores for patients who had responded to the for April 2024 to January 2025 that the average score were between 90.2% (Walter Tull Ward) and 95.8% (inpatients specialties). The report also showed the medicine and urgent care division had received 25 complaints during January 2025. The top 3 themes for complaints across the whole hospital were communication, discharge, and clinical care.

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.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We were not always assured that all relevant information to reflect patients’ physical, mental, emotional, and social needs were captured, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. We found patients’ paper-based records were not always completed fully and staff did not always use information from ‘patient passports’ where detailed information about how to communicate effectively with patients was recorded.

The hospital was in the process of transitioning to full electronic patient records and operated across paper-based and electronic records to aid board rounds. There was a risk of duplication of records or information not being effectively recorded to support effective communication and ensure patients were involved in their care.

Patients’ individual needs to have information in an accessible way were mostly identified, recorded, highlighted, and shared. These needs were mostly met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Information about the hospital was available online in a range of different formats and languages. There was a free Wi-Fi service which enabled staff and patients access to information stored on the internet. Staff told us they had access to interpretation services when needed.

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.

Inpatients did not always receive care in inpatient wards designed to care for patients with their conditions. Some patients had long waits in the emergency department before they could be transferred to an inpatient ward.

Assessment findings:

Patients were not always transferred to medical wards from the emergency department when a ‘decision to admit’ had been made. There were significant delays due to patient flow through the hospital and the availability of acute medical beds in the hospital. Long waits in the emergency department led to poor patient experience and there was a risk that they did not always receive equitable care despite staff efforts in the busy emergency department.

Patients requiring medical care and treatment as inpatients were sometimes placed on surgical wards if inpatients demand was greater than the number of beds available in medical wards, sometimes referred to as ‘medical outliers.’ Some surgical wards had developed escalation selection criteria to ensure it was safe for patients to be placed on the ward and that their needs could be met. We reviewed patients’ records and spoke with staff on surgical wards who looked after medical patients. We were told and could see in patients’ records that the patients had been reviewed by consultants every day during their admission. Nurses told us they knew how to access medical assistance if it was required such as by contacting the hospital’s outreach team. Each ‘outlier’ ward had a medical team from a dedicated medical ward who maintained clinical responsibility for patients’ treatment. For example, at the time of our inspection, there were 11 medical patients in Spencer Ward (surgical ward) being looked after by medical staff from Victoria Ward. Service leaders did not express any concerns about medical outliers and the potential impact they may have on the host wards and their activity. They told us it was rare that planned operations were cancelled.

Service leaders audited how many times patients were moved during the time they were admitted to the hospital. Data showed the average number of ward moves was 2 moves per patient between August 2024 and January 2025, excluding the transfer from the emergency department when they were admitted. Data also showed there was a total of 1839 ward moves between 10 pm and 6 am in the same period. Out-of-hours bed moves can cause potential stress, and safety risks and undermine patients’ experience.

Staff on the hyperacute stroke ward – Benham Ward, ensured there was always a ringfenced bed available for stroke patients requiring thrombolysis. Staff worked with specialist thrombolysis nurses to ensure this time-critical treatment was administered safely.

We reviewed information about the trust’s assurance that there was provision for ‘seven-day services’ in line with national guidance (Seven-day Services Clinical Standards, 2022). These standards included access to timely consultant review, patients’ involvement, effective handovers, twice daily ward and board rounds, and access to diagnostic services, mental health professionals, and other clinical support services such as physiotherapists when needed. Compliance with these standards supports the delivery of high-quality care and improves patient outcomes, including the safe discharging of patients.

Staff told us they had access to diagnostic 7 days a week. We saw there were regular ward and board rounds, although not always twice a day. We received information to demonstrate the actions taken to improve the quality of the board rounds where this was needed. However, there was not always access to support services 7 days a week such as occupational therapists and physiotherapists. This had been an ongoing concern for the trust, and they shared a business case (December 2023) to recruit more therapy staff to meet compliance. This had not yet been fully resolved although staff worked flexibly to meet demand.

Patients admitted to escalation areas or escalation beds were sometimes cared for in mixed-sex areas. Patients received a letter explaining this and included information about how to raise concerns if needed. Data showed there has been an average of 14 mixed-sex accommodation breaches between August 2024 and January 2025 and 4 of these had been between 1 December 2024 and 7 January 2025.

The hospital had introduced virtual wards also known as ‘hospital at home. This is an acute clinical service with staff, equipment, technologies, medication, and skills usually provided in hospitals delivered in patients’ usual place of residence, including care homes. Data showed that an average of 147 patients received acute care at home between August 2024 and the end of January 2025. The largest group of patients who received virtual ward care was patients who received acute medical and respiratory care.

Services were accessible for patients who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The hospital and inpatient wards were accessible to patients using wheelchairs and there was access to lifts to ensure patients could access services on different levels of the hospital. However, the corridors were very long and could pose a challenge for patients to navigate if they had poor mobility or shortness of breath due to their medical condition. This was a known risk, and the hospital provided indoor and outdoor Patient Buggy Services, a pre-bookable ‘meet and greet service and a wheelchair assistance service

The hospital had a strategy to ‘deliver high-quality services that were accessible, responsive, and appropriate to meet the needs of the patients and staff they serve.’ There was a Group Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy for 2021-2024 for staff which included 5 values ‘dedicated to excellence’. The values were used as visual reminders for all staff of the expected behaviour in striving for excellence. However, the strategy was no longer current as it should have been reviewed in 2024.

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.