East Surrey 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 assessed a total of 4 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was outstanding. Our rating for this key question has changed to good.
People were mostly at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Information provided to patients was not always appropriate, accurate or up-to-date and not in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There were ways for people to share feedback and ideas, and to raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, information how to do this was not always displayed on wards. The service did not always ensure everyone could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service could not demonstrate equity of outcomes for patient groups.

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.

Patients generally felt informed about their care, including ward transfers and changes in treatment. Some patients expressed uncertainty about discharge plans. Most family members felt informed and included in care discussions.

Staff told us patient’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs were recorded in the patient’s care plans. They talked about the adjustments they would make to meet the needs of the patient.
Staff told us they involved patients and their families with their care, helping them to understand their treatment and responding to their concerns. They were conscious of the language they used with patients and realised it might need to be changed depending on their audience.
 

We reviewed patient care plans and could see plans reflected the needs of the patients. However, some assessments or observations were not completed in a timely way. This could delay patient’s accessibility needs being met. For example, support required for personnel care and toileting.
We observed that the butterfly scheme was used in the service, a discreet butterfly symbol was used to help staff recognise and support patients who were living with dementia. However, AMU and elderly care wards were not dementia friendly. Dementia-friendly wards create a more supportive and less confusing environment for people with dementia, this can reduced behavioural issues and time spent in bed and improve quality of life during their hospital stay.
 

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.

People told us the signage was hard to follow at the hospital which made finding certain areas and wards in the hospital difficult. In addition, the hospital map was not up to date and did not highlight where there were long walks to certain wards.
Patients also told us hearing loops were not always working.
 

Staff told us they provided information to patients in different formats for patients dependent on their needs. For example, using pictures rather than words when looking after a patient who have a learning disability.
Staff were aware how to access translators for patients whom English was not their first language. Some staff reported relying on the patient’s relatives on occasions but were aware this was not best practice.
Staff told us they were supported by the learning disability team or the mental health liaison team for patients with learning or communication difficulties. Hospital passports were used to inform staff of essential information about the patient, including their communication preferences.
 

We saw a range of leaflets and posters displayed in the medical care wards.
Wards had patient and staff information boards in the corridors which displayed helpful information for patients and visitors including patient experience and safety data. However, there was no standardisation across wards on the information displayed, and some wards displayed no information.

The service followed trust’s policies to ensure the protection of patient data. Information explaining how the trust collected, processed, transferred and stored personal information under the general data protection regulation (GDPR) could be found on their website.

All written patient information was discussed at the patient information review group to ensure the quality of patient information materials, such as leaflets and posters was checked for accuracy, clarity, readability and appropriateness for the intended audience. This included feedback from patients themselves to improve understanding and relevance.
The trust was not fully compliant with the Accessible Information Standards Act 2016, which aims to make sure people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss can access information they can understand and receive the communication support they need from health and care services. Workstreams and an accessible hospital working group had been set up to address the issues on non-compliance.

There was mixed feedback from patients and their families regarding raising concerns. Some people said they would raise concerns or complaints with ward staff while others expressed uncertainly on how to raise concerns.

Staff told us they would try and address complaints or concerns as soon as possible. The teams attempted to resolve any issues before concerns escalated to become formal complaints. Conflict resolution training was part of the mandatory training. However, the trust target of 90% for completion had not been met by medical staff (72%) or nursing staff (88%) working in the service.
Staff we spoke with knew how to direct patients or their relatives to the patient advice liaison service (PALS) if they wanted to make a more formal complaint.
 

The service wanted public engagement and offered a range of ways for the public to feed back their comments and help improve services. Details could be found on the trust’s website for raising concerns, providing feedback on care or becoming involved with patient experience groups.
However, not all wards in the hospital displayed information on how to raise concerns.
 

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.

Feedback from people with different disabilities or accessibility needs highlighted areas where improvements were needed to give them equity. Areas included access to the hospital, signage, pathways and corridors, and accessible communication.

Staff told us they would make adjustments for patients to meet their needs. Staff were aware of how to access services and support for patients, for example translators for patients where English was not their first language or hospital specialist in learning disabilities or dementia awareness.
Staff told us areas for activities in the elderly care wards who were medically fit but waiting for onward care packages, had been removed as the space was needed for patient beds. This meant there was limited area for patients to interact out of bed and engage in cognitively stimulating activities.
 

The trust had commissioned an accessibility audit in June 2024 to identify areas where there was not equity in services. Workstreams had been set up to address the issues that were highlighted in the audit. Issues included access to the hospital, signage, accessible communication, access to faith rooms and gardens.
Post inspection the service shared information with us to demonstrate how they monitored patient outcomes. Although requested, they did not demonstrate how they measured equity in outcomes for people.
 

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.