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 good.

The service was inclusive and took account of patients' 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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

During our onsite assessment, we spoke with patients who mostly told us they had been involved in their care and treatment. However, we spoke with a patient who had their bed rails up who indicated they had not discussed this with the staff looking after them. The staff providing the care and treatment to the patient told us the patient had requested these to be put in place.

Staff told us they completed care plans and risk assessments electronically on the prescribing information and communication system (PICS). Staff were required to complete bedrails assessments twice per day and within 6 hours of admission. A clinical dashboard was available with data taken from PICS.

We reviewed the care plan of a patient who had sustained a fall and found a risk assessment had been done including a re-assessment after 6 hours. Staff had taken steps to keep the patient safe following a fall including providing 1:1 care as required.

Patients on 4 or more medicines were automatically considered to be at risk of falls.

Staff received moving and handling training which covered aspects such as management of bedrails.

We observed patients within Ward 24 who were being cohorted together due to their risk of falls. Staff were trying to ensure their care and treatment remained person-centred, despite requiring the closer supervision. The bay in which they were cohorted in was more spacious than other bays to accommodate additional equipment and was brighter due to larger windows.

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.