Birmingham Heartlands 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 reviewed the person-centred care quality statement from the responsive key question. As this assessment was based on risk, we did not complete enough quality statements to re-rate the whole key question, responsive therefore remained requires improvement.

The service was inclusive and took account of patient’s individual needs and preferences. Staff made sure patients living with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia received the necessary care to meet all their needs. All patients we spoke to felt involved in their care and understood their condition and treatment plans. We saw examples of person-centred care on the wards we visited.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

All patients we spoke to understood their condition and treatment plans. Patients and families were supported and involved in planning for discharge. We were told staff arranged for family members to attend doctors' ward rounds to involve them in decisions were needed. Patients told us that staff communicated well and kept them informed about any changes to their condition and treatment.

We spoke to 7 patients and 2 relatives. They all told us that they were involved in the decision-making process and had options explained to them. One patient told us, “I was fully involved in any decision making and they made sure I understood all complications around my procedure. They had explained all my options I had, the risks to each stage and how they would approach it. I feel so supported.”

Visiting times for all wards were from 11am until 8pm. Relatives felt involved in the patient's care, were able to help at mealtimes if required and felt they could easily speak to staff and doctors if required.

The service completed friends and family tests where they collected feedback from patients and their relatives. These were analysed by the managers and acted upon where needed to make improvements. We saw 3 examples of feedback from 18 March 2024, and they were all positive and included comments, such as “good service by the nurses” and “satisfied with all the staff. They are doing very well all the time and helpful”.

The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.

Staff told us about how they had thought about their patients’ best interests and acted to ensure the care they received was right for them. For example, we were told about a patient who lacked capacity due to living with learning difficulties. The service involved an independent mental capacity advocate to hold a best interest meeting. They met alongside clinicians and the patient’s family and discussed the patients care and how to manage the care moving forward. Staff told us this felt very patient centred, it felt right and that ‘the patient really matters’.

Staff made sure patients living with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia, received the necessary care to meet all their needs. We listened to a handover where a nurse talked about a patient who had autism and was vulnerable. They had refused a hospital passport and handed over to the other nurse the specific likes and needs of the patient to ensure the care was person-centred.

We observed staff discussing patient care in a person-centred way. We listened to a handover and found it to be detailed and risk based and included discussions about how patients felt and what staff could do to improve their experience. For example, a patient who was living with autism did not like to be woken up or have their bloods taken in the morning. The staff had put them in a side room to reduce their distractions and had arranged for their blood to be taken later in the day.

We saw there were communication boxes on the wards which had devices to assist with patients who were hard of hearing.

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.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.