You are here

Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 November 2014
Date of Publication: 3 January 2015
Inspection Report published 03 January 2015 PDF | 76.1 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 28 November 2014

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

This was not an inspection of all of the services provided by the Trust.

When we last visited the trust in July 2013 we identified some concerns about how the care provided to patients, was checked and monitored by senior staff on wards and units. Whilst the hospital looked into all serious issues, some routine checking to ensure people received planned care and treatment was not evident.

When we visited the hospital on 28 November 2014 we found improvements had been made. We specifically focussed on how the hospital managed the care of patients at risk from pressure ulcers (an ulcer as a result of pressure damage) and we looked at how the risk of poor nutrition was managed. We found the trust had taken steps to reduce the incidence of preventable pressure ulcers. There were good systems of governance at board and at ward level to check patients were receiving the right care and treatment at the right time. Senior and middle managers, as well as ward staff were committed to these systems.

We followed the care and treatment pathway of 20 people across eight wards that included surgical, medical and the emergency department.

We found that the trust reported incidents of pressure ulcers and learned from adverse events in order to improve patient safety. There were standard procedures and treatment protocols in place and staff knew what these were. Care activities for each patient were recorded and monitored to support consistent care.

Patients were assessed to establish the care they needed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. Risks of pressure ulcers and risk of poor nutrition were identified and managed. Plans of care and treatment were implemented and reviewed, including when patients transferred between wards and departments. There were systems in place to identify and ensure support at mealtimes for patients at nutritional risk. We found some care records about people's support with nutrition in some wards could be improved.

There was generally good multi-disciplinary team and mult-agency work to treat and support patients and staff had access to appropriate training and specialist nurses. There was appropriate and sufficient specialist equipment to ensure patient's safety and comfort.

People generally made very positive comments about the service including:

'Excellent care- even down to the cleaner'

"They look after him well but he doesn't like the food"

"The nurses have been brilliant"

'Nothing is ever too much trouble for them'

"They've all been polite and involved in his care"

"The staff are good and the food is OK"