Crawley 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 that people and at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We saw the care needs of people and communities were understood. The service was actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We saw evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal needs and protected equality characteristics.

When the service was last inspected and rated, the rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

The service planned and provided care in a way that ensured care was managed with the patient. The team contacted people in advance of their appointment to ensure things like transport was available for them to attend, if not, they could help for transport to be arranged.

Staff were passionate about their work and spoke positively about patient care. The team were accessible to patients and could be contacted in advance of appointments for support or help. Care was planned with patients in mind to ensure they were well informed to make decisions.

The service provided clear communication. Care plans were tailored to the individual patient to reflect their needs. We reviewed patient records which included signed consent forms.

The patient portal was available for patients to receive clinic letters following consultations. Most people felt comfortable using this technology, however, for those who did not, other methods such as receiving printed letters, phone calls and SMS messaging was available to them.

Staff were aware of the local community needs including the concerns patients had. This understanding helped staff to be response and support the patients journey by better preparing them for their appointments.

The location had listened to local community needs and initiatives and were in the process of building a Community Diagnostics Centre in answer to these needs. This would benefit the community as there would be more accessibility to these services.

We did not gather evidence from partners.

The electronic patient record system could be accessed from anywhere which enabled staff to upload patient documents straight after the clinic finished. This meant there was a reduced risk for documentation error and provided an improved continuity of care as the notes were up to date and readily available.

There were multiple ways for people to be informed of their appointments, including by phone, letter, via the app or by text message. There were mixed responses regarding the patient portal app, one person said they found the app “helpful and easy to use” another said they “have not used it”.

An electronic patient record system was in place which staff understood how to use. This meant some clinics only required one sheet of paper which would then be scanned into the system to the patient’s records to ensure safe and timely storing of the documents.

Staff were aware of how information could be provided to patients to ensure it was accessible, including through easy read and braille documents.

Information could be provided to the service user in different formats depending on their personal needs. Services were available for appointments via the patient portal app, letter, text messaging and telephone calls.

Patient records were processed in a timely manner with dedicated record keepers. There were digital division staff on the ward who managed records.

People felt staff listened to them and cared. The staff were friendly and communicated well with patients. People were able to provided feedback about their experiences with the service through ‘Your Care Matters’ surveys.

Staff provided multiple examples of times they had raised concerns and received outcomes and feedback from them. However, there was a concern raised regarding the outdated refurbishment and it taking longer than they expected to be completed.

Opportunities to provide feedback were available to both patients and staff to ensure compliments and concerns were reviewed. Examples were provided where learning from outcomes had been acted upon to improve the service. For example a patient complained there was not a changing places area, there was a designated area, however, not all staff were aware of it. In response to the complaint, staff were made aware of the area for future reference and this was fed back to the complainant to ensure a more positive service was offered.

Many people reported difficulties with parking as there was a lack of spaces which caused stress. One said there were ‘too few disabled spaces’. Car parking was an issue for staff and patients; however, the car parking site was managed by another provider.

A person we spoke with told us they felt characteristics were not a barrier, they reported there was no bias or ageism with their relative’s treatment which they were pleased about.

The service had hearing loop devices in place. There were also braille documents available. More than 1 staff member told us one area had clinic room doors which were not wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair user. Staff were aware the impact this could have on patients and were conscious to not use this specific room for a patient who required a wheelchair due to the door size. Staff also said they could access a hoist, but it was shared with the X-ray department. It was reported there was easy read information for people with a learning disability (LD). Although there was not a dedicated LD nurse on site, staff would be able to contact one of the nurses at the other main site.

There were processes in place and support available to staff and patients. The premises were accessible with adjustments in place to work around the aged environment in one of the outpatient departments.

People felt that staff listened to them and gave them time to discuss their care. Patients were pleased with their care and generally wanted to be treated close to home.

Staff were aware of what could be discrimination and inequality. They were aware of initiatives to address areas where barriers could be found and how they could support equality. We heard how staff felt that they were supported at work regardless of their personal beliefs or protected characteristics.

Reasonable adjustments would be made to ensure care was available and safe for patients, such as using specific rooms to ensure conversations were private and in a quiet environment.

The service sought feedback from staff and patients to ensure care was tailored to service users. Staff received training which specifically focussed on equality and diversity.

People were supported to attend appointments and be involved in their care. Staff communicated well with patients to ensure there was understanding and if there were any questions, staff would help where able.

Clinicians would speak to patients about their care and next steps. Clinicians were supportive and provided relevant information to the patient in a way that was easily understandable to them.

Care was personalised to the patient with appropriate information shared with relevant care providers such as GPs and the main hospital site for specialist care or treatment.

Staff were able to explain how to use language line, which gave them access to a translator service. This would ensure patients understood the information they were receiving and could make informed choices about their care.