You are here

The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 November 2012
Date of Publication: 20 December 2012
Inspection Report published 20 December 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we have gathered about The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 12 November 2012 and observed how people were being cared for. We checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care, talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. When we visited the hospital we saw staff talking to patients in a respectful manner and ensuring their privacy was maintained. On Lady Anne Allerton ward we observed that most patients chose to use the curtains around their beds and we saw staff asking for permission before going round the curtains. On the Neuromedical Intensive Care we saw that the staff were closing the curtains around patients’ beds prior to delivering care. When we visited the Outpatients Department we saw that patients went into individual rooms to discuss their treatment and this provided privacy.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected. For example, when people did not speak English, the staff told us they could get interpreters to enable the staff to communicate with the patients.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. When we spoke with patients, most told us they felt they had been involved in decisions about their care and that staff explained their care to them. Some patients we spoke to felt the staff could take more time to explain things to them.

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. The hospital had an information document available explaining the services it offers. There was also an information pamphlet given to patients prior to their admission, which gave patients information on what to expect on their admission.

When we asked people whether they had felt they had been given enough information, most told us they felt they had. The following are examples of what people told us:

“I had a good discussion about my treatment prior to my admission.”

“Yes. They all explained. The doctors were very clear on my issues.”

“The staff can answer my questions or say who I should ask. They are very helpful.”

“They stop to explain everything.”