Furness General Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service provided effective care and assessed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them. The service worked well across teams and services to support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence by delivering person-centred care and treatment.

However, the service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment through audit to continuously improve it.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 15 sets of patient notes and found all contained the required information and were completed fully and without any errors or omissions.

Staff completed a comprehensive health assessment of the patient in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. We saw examples of care plans that covered such areas as pressure area care, falls risk assessments and nutritional plans.

Care plans were personalised and holistic. We observed staff completing care plans with patients and their families.

We saw that all care plans were updated in all 15 records that we reviewed.

We plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff participated in The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) 2025 Healthcare Quality Improvement Plan (QIP). QIPs are a structured approach to improving the quality of care delivered in an Emergency Department (ED) and focus on specific areas of emergency care, like mental health, care of older people, and time-critical medication.

Staff had access to the information to assess, plan, and deliver care and treatment. Clinical guidelines were up to date and reflected national guidance and best practice. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Staff assessed and met patients’ needs for food and drink and for specialist nutrition and hydration. We saw that diet and hydration needs were included in all records that we reviewed.

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the service. As well as doctors and nurses, we spoke with specialist staff who would work collaboratively within the department, for example the frailty team consisted of specialist therapists and specialty doctors. Staff told us that they could access specialist input when required for their patients.

Staff were experienced, qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. The department had a practice educator who led on all training provision within the department

Managers provided new staff with appropriate induction, all staff we spoke with had received a full induction when joining the department.

Managers provided staff with supervision (meetings to discuss care management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and appraisal of their work performance. All nursing staff reported that they were supported by their senior leaders.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings. If staff were not available to attend then senior leaders would ensure that all staff received meeting minutes by email.

The percentage of nursing staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 86% at the time of inspection

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. The practice educator would regularly work with staff to help them develop and improve.

Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles. The practice educator led on specialist training and would ensure all staff had the opportunity to attend specialist training.

We work effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only need to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they move between different services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide safe care. Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings to review patients and improve their care. We saw multidisciplinary working with services, such as occupational therapy, psychiatric liaison, and diagnostics to identify the most appropriate care and treatment for patients.

We observed effective communication between staff when handing over patient care at the beginning and end of shifts. We also observed staff huddles throughout the day when patients were discussed, and any concerns were raised as appropriate. We also noted the use of a flow navigator who linked all areas of the department effectively.

There was cross Bay working for the division with attendance three times daily at patient flow meetings to monitor pressures in the emergency departments across the trust and its hospitals. These daily patient flow meetings were multidisciplinary and attended by representatives from all divisions. Concerns could then be escalated to the senior management team.

Multidisciplinary working was evident and effective within the department; however, we were given examples of communication between the department and other specialties within the hospital being less effective which impacted the patient journey and reduced access to specialist services.

We support people to manage their health and wellbeing so they can maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives including advice regulating to healthy lifestyles. For example, we were told if a patient came in who had fallen with no injury, staff would provide information to improve a persons balance. They would also consider referral to the falls prevention team.

There were posters signposting patients to alternative services to support patients including NHS 111, counselling, exploitation, abuse and other care partners.

There were leaflets available, in the department and the SDEC that had been produced by NHS Organisations or external agencies such as safe sleeping for babies, smoking cessation, groups to support a mental health crisis, spiritual support and abuse signposting. Examples of leaflets provided following the onsite inspection showed that these were available in languages other than English if required. Staff told us that they would discuss health promotion with patients if there was opportunity, but this wasn’t consistently available due to pressures within the department.

We routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes are positive and consistent, and that they meet both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We did note an inconsistent approach to audit and benchmarking. We were told that the department undertook audits but when we asked for examples following our inspection visit, we were provided with a very limited number of completed audits. This did not provide assurance that the department was effectively using audits to monitor and improve care and outcomes.

Staff used recognised tools to improve the detection and response to clinical deterioration in patients as a key element of patient safety and improving patient outcomes. We saw staff using a nationally recognised early warning system (NEWS2). We also noted that all patients had been assessed and escalated appropriately in all cases that we reviewed

Staff used technology to support patients effectively (for example, for prompt access to blood test results).

We tell people about their rights around consent and respect these when we deliver person-centred care and treatment.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent. They supported patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or when experiencing mental ill health. Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care.

Staff gained consent from patients for their care and treatment during triage in line with legislation and guidance and this was clearly recorded in the patients’ records.

When patients could not give consent, staff made decisions in their best interest, taking into account patients’ wishes, culture and traditions. The service had effective systems to ensure staff assessed the mental capacity of patients and recorded decisions made in service users’ best interest when applying to deprive the service user of their liberty.