Bassetlaw District General Hospital

Updated 3 August 2026

Bassetlaw District General Hospital registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 16 June 2010.The hospital is part of Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Bassetlaw Hospital is an acute site with over 170 beds, a 24-hour Emergency Department (ED), and a wide range of hospital services including a dedicated breast care unit. The hospital provides care across inpatient, outpatient and day case settings.

An onsite assessment of children and young people (CYP) services took place on 22 and 23 April 2026, followed by two leader interviews on 7 and 14 May 2026.

The assessment focused on children and young people service division, reviewing progress since the 2017 assessment, which had identified requirement actions. While improvements had been made since 2017, further evaluation was undertaken.

Children’s services at Bassetlaw General Hospital provide both inpatient and outpatient care. The service included:

• Children’s Assessment Unit (CAU)
• Children’s outpatient services

In 2025, the children’s emergency service was formally integrated into the wider children’s services division. This transition ensured improved management support and oversight. To enhance staff competence and confidence across both settings, staff were supported to work across inpatient and emergency areas, with additional training provided to ensure appropriate competencies for their roles.

Updated 22 January 2026

The children and young people (CYP) assessment at Bassetlaw District General Hospital took place on 22 and 23 April 2026, with additional interviews completed on 7th and 14 May 2026. All 33 quality statements were assessed. The service was rated good overall.

The service had a proactive and positive safety culture, characterised by openness, transparency and a commitment to learning. Safety incidents were investigated thoroughly, with learning shared across multidisciplinary teams to improve practice. Effective safeguarding systems were in place, supported by good partnership working with external agencies.

Leadership was visible and supportive. Staff described escalation processes as clear and effective. Clinical staff demonstrated appropriate knowledge and use of paediatric advanced warning systems (PAWS) to identify deterioration. There was an effective system in place to transfer patients who required a higher level of acute care.

This assessment followed concerns identified at our last assessment in 2017, including workforce capacity, culture, and care for children with mental health needs. Since our last assessment senior leaders had become actively involved in clinical areas to maintain safety and provide support.

Mental health training provision had improved. Risk assessments were in place, staff had completed relevant training, and access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) support and a dedicated mental health champion strengthened care delivery.

The unit had a mental health assessment room in place.

However, some concerns remained:

The service did not fully meet Facing the Future standards.

Staff told us they were concerned regarding staffing of the Children’s Assessment Unit, however this was currently under review as the service had expanded to 24 hour care.

There was low compliance in paediatric life support training for nursing staff and variable performance in the use of the paediatric advanced warning score tool.

We found that progress against actions arising from previous audits had not been effectively tracked or documented. In addition, there was no consent audit programme or formal children’s strategy in place.

Updated 28 March 2024

Updated 23 October 2015

Overall critical care services at Bassetlaw District General Hospital were judged as good.

Within safety, concerns were identified with regard to the lack of pharmacy staff cover, there were no specifically trained intensivists working within the unit, and there was a lack of dedicated medical out of hours cover provided on the unit. We also identified concerns regarding a lack of delirium and sedation scoring and recording in patient records. However we did not identify any specific concerns regarding the levels of nursing staff on the unit, but some staff did comment that they were often moved to the critical care unit at Doncaster Royal Infirmary.

There were, however, many positive aspects to the unit. Caring was good, patients stated they were well cared for and surveys supported this. Care was effectively delivered by the multidisciplinary team utilising best practice. The service was well led locally, though as a relatively new care group unit, further focus was required on the development of the unit and its future use and links to the unit at Doncaster Royal Infirmary.

Updated 28 March 2024

Updated 23 October 2015

We saw that end of life care services were safe, caring, responsive and well led. However, we saw that improvements were required in order for services to be effective. Mental capacity assessments were not being carried out on patients who were considered to be lacking capacity to be involved in discussions about DNACPR decisions. The trust needed to have a more systematic approach to recording mental capacity assessments in relation to DNACPR decisions where patients were unable to be involved in these discussions.

We observed specialist nurses and medical staff providing specialist support in a timely way that was aimed at developing the skills of non-specialist staff and ensuring the quality of end of life care. Specialist palliative care nurses provided a five day face to face assessment service which was different to the seven day face to face service available at Doncaster. While staff told us the Doncaster on-call nurse could see patients in Bassetlaw if required, this was not widely known by staff at Bassetlaw. There was an agreement by the trust’s corporate investment committee to recruit to a further two end of life care nurses to provide an improved service for patients at Bassetlaw District General Hospital. We were told that staff were caring and compassionate and we saw the service was responsive to patients’ needs. There were prompt referral responses from the specialist palliative care team and a good focus on preferred place of care and fast track discharge for patients at the end of life wishing to be at home.

Action had been taken against the issues identified in audits including the National Care of the Dying Audit. The implementation of the last days of life individual plan of care (IPOC) had been closely monitored by the end of life care coordinator with continuous reviews and feedback in place to develop this. A business case had been developed to increase the capacity of the end of life care/specialist palliative care service and the trust board had committed investment in improving the service as a result. The trust had a clear vision and strategy for end of life care services and participated in regional discussions and collaboration in relation to strategic planning and delivery of services to improve end of life care in the region.

Updated 28 March 2024

Updated 19 February 2020

• The service provided mandatory training to all staff and controlled infection risk well. Equipment and the premises were visibly clean. Staff managed clinical waste well. There were enough staff to keep patients safe and provide the right care and treatment.
• Staff kept records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were up to date and easily available to staff providing care. The service prescribed, administered, recorded and stored medicines safely.
• Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers shared lessons learned locally with the team.
• The service based care and treatment on national guidance and individual specialities managed NICE guidance compliance rates within departments. Medical staff prescribed and administered pain relief for minor procedures.
• Staff worked together as a team to benefit patients and provide good care and were competent for their roles. All staff had completed their appraisal. Staff knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health.
• The service provided outpatient clinics between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. Some clinics were provided in the evenings to meet demand. People could access food and drink. The service had relevant information promoting healthy lifestyles and support.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.
• Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers to minimise their distress.
• Staff supported patients, families and carers to understand their condition.
• The service planned and provided care to meet the needs of local people. The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences.
• People could access the service when they needed it. Although some specialties struggled to meet demand, most waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with national standards. Staff treated concerns seriously, investigated them and managers shared lessons learned with staff.
• Local managers were visible and approachable for patients and staff. They supported staff across the department. The service and senior leaders had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and focused on the needs of patients. The service provided opportunities for career development with an open culture where staff could raise concerns without fear.
• Although the ‘did not attend’ rate was higher than the England average at all of the trust’s sites, a new text reminder and respond system had been implemented. Managers and booking centre staff told us the trust had been able to reduce the rate significantly over two full months prior to our inspection.
• Leaders operated effective governance processes. Managers worked with partner organisations. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles.
• Leaders managed performance effectively. Environmental risks were identified and recorded.
• The service collected data to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were integrated and secure.
• Leaders and staff engaged with patients, staff, and local organisations to plan and manage services. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.
• Leaders encouraged innovation and participation in research.

However:

• Cleaning checklists were not always completed.
• Records were not always clear, and staff did not always adhere to professional record keeping standards.
• Learning from never events was not shared widely across different outpatients departments at the trust although staff in ophthalmology were aware of the events and actions taken as a result of investigation and reporting within the specialty.
• The trust did not display information for patients on how to make a complaint.
• There was a waiting list for review patients in ophthalmology and an incident had occurred where a patient had not received the right care promptly. Patient review appointments were managed centrally by the trust bookings team and managers said their processes were robust and would not allow a backlog of review appointments. However, the incident investigation had identified over 700 patients in ophthalmology had no review appointments. Following the inspection, staff told us the trust, with the CCG, had commissioned an external review of all waiting lists. They told us all ophthalmology patients on the review list had their appointments brought forward.
• Information provided by the trust prior to our inspection showed no clinics were cancelled. However, they later provided information to show 20% of all outpatient clinics were cancelled.
• Some staff were unaware who executive leaders were.
• Although staff were aware of departmental plans relevant to their own area, not all staff were aware of how they linked in with the overarching trust strategy.
• Risk registers did not include all risks and reviews of actions taken were not documented.
• Senior leadership operated at directorate level and outpatients departments worked separately from each other. It was not clear if leaders had an overview of the outpatients department as a whole.

Updated 28 March 2024

Updated 28 March 2024