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 looked for evidence people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked the health and care needs of people were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care to meet these needs. We also looked for evidence people could access care in ways met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

The service made sure children and young people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of their patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved children and young people in decisions about their care. The service made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

This is the first assessment for this service since the trust was formed in 2018. Responsive is rated as good. This meant children and young people's needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure children and young people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in children's needs.

There were facilities for families so they could spend time with their children. Parents had access to a kitchen where they could get hot drinks. Parents they told us they were offered meals so they could eat with their children, or if not, they were able to bring in their own food from home. The results from the NHS Friends and Family Test survey for the service were positive except for a question about the quality of food. There was an action recorded from this feedback to visit local schools to look at how the hospital could improve the food. The service had a 2 large playrooms, 1 on the ward and 1 on the neonatal unit where children and young people and their families could go and spend time together without being at the bedside. There were toys for older siblings to play with while visiting.

There was support for vulnerable children or those with specific needs. The service had a range of documentation and protocols to support children and young people on the ward with a learning disability, autism, or a mental health concern. This included `passport' documentation which described the child's wants, needs, any reasonable adjustments needed, and how they would like to be communicated with. However, there was an inconsistent approach to completion of these passports and staff were not always able to locate these on the electronic patient record. The care plans we did review included helpful levels of detail about how to care for the child or young person.

In the 15 patient records we reviewed, there was clear documentation of person-centred planning, and care being provided to meet the children and young people's individual needs. This included showing how children had been involved in decisions and making personal choices.

The trust had a specialised bereavement service to support families.

The neonatal unit gave parents a folder with information about the service such as visiting times for siblings and grandparents, contact numbers and an explanation of medical tests and scans. The folder also explained next steps for babies in the unit, such as transfer to other departments and where parents could access support. This folder would be useful for parents and families as understanding information where a child is unwell can be difficult.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked closely with its partner hospital, Good Hope Hospital, which was part of the same NHS trust. For more complex care and treatment needs, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital received transfers from Good Hope Hospital. Staff worked together to provide joined-up care and make the transfer as simple as possible for the child and family. Care and treatment for babies requiring transfer to the hospital's specialist service was overseen by the regional neonatal transport team.

The service had good links with the local learning disabilities community team, which was set up to provide these children and young people going back home with continuous care and treatment.

There was continuity with partners in health and social care. Local mental health services were working closely with the staff, and during our inspection we saw staff from a local service attending to work with and support a young person. The service also worked closely with the local authority. Multiagency meetings took place when needed where social service staff attended if there were decisions about community support required, particularly for a looked-after child.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs.

Children, young people, parents and carers were given information from staff they could understand. This was delivered in their preferred communication method and could be verbally, with leaflets, using translation, or communication aids. The staff had access to a communication box which had British Sign Language cards, picture exchange systems, Makaton signs and some magnified glasses to help and support children and young people with their communication.

The service had access to a translation service, and were able to print information leaflets for children, young people and their families. These were also available for those whose first or chosen language was not English. The information contained in the folder which the neonatal service gave to parents and families was available in 5 languages.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Children, young people, their parents and carers had a good understanding of how to complain if they were unhappy with the care and treatment given. Staff said that talking as much as possible to children, young people and their families had helped understand if they were unhappy with anything and deal with it quickly. Staff encouraged families to raise concerns or complaints if they felt it was necessary.

The service monitored complaints and the outcomes and involved people in how complaints were resolved.

The service asked children and young people, their families and carers for feedback about their time at the service. The survey results showed that the food at the service scored lowest in the survey. The highest scores were for the care received, involvement in decisions and information provided. The neonatal teams scored well in the survey.

The service made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Children and young people were able to access care and treatment when it was needed, or as soon as waiting lists made appointments available. Some waiting lists were long and had yet to recover following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, children who needed care and treatment in the service as an emergency or urgently were accommodated without unsafe waiting times.

Care was provided in line with evidence-based practice, quality standards and legal requirements. The trust’s policies met these requirements and those of quality and human rights legislation. Reasonable adjustments were made for people with disabilities and premises were accessible for anyone to use safely.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups. They understood their community and specific needs of the population to ensure everyone could have equity in access.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

People were able to give their views of their experience and outcomes. Staff took these views into account in seeking to give all patients the best outcome. If there was discrimination or inequality recognised, this was addressed to improve care and eradicate poor outcomes. The service had protocols and policies to comply with legal equality and human rights legislation.

Staff had a good understanding of the diversity within the local community. They worked closely with outside agencies to be able to provide a service to meet the diverse needs of the local community and provide equity in experience and outcomes for patients.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Children, young people, and their families said they felt staff gave them good information about planning for their future when they left hospital. They could make informed choices and say what mattered to them. The service worked closely with other health and social care professionals, including GPs, community care teams, and social services to help the child and their family plan for the future.

End of life care was managed sensitively and with compassion. Any decisions about treatment or care were made with a multidisciplinary team approach and full involvement of the family and carers.