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

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

There was evidence that learning from incidents / investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. We saw evidence that the trust had processes in place to improve the care patients received where concerns were identified. One concern that had been identified was waiting times in the Multiple Sclerosis relapse clinic. In response to this the trust had undertaken a project looking at how the clinic could be improved to run faster. This had seen a reduction in time of clinic from an average of 113 minutes to an average of 57 minutes per patient.

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. In the Outpatients department the hospital carried out an annual survey asking about their experiences of care. At the time of our visit it was also in the process of introducing a new electronic system to gather patient opinions.

On Neuromedical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) regular patient satisfaction audits were being undertaken. These asked people about their experience of care, including whether their pain was managed and whether they were comfortable.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. For example, when we visited the MICU we saw evidence that regular audits were taking place to monitor the quality of care being provided. These included pain management, World Health Organisation checklist compliance, pre-assessment, and patient satisfaction. When we visited Lady Allerton and David Ferrier wards there was evidence of falls and pressure care being monitored and reported. We were also told they were working to improve care further by doing audits of how long it takes for call bells to be answered, nutrition and privacy and dignity.