Furness General 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remains good.

Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

The service ensured people are at the centre of their care and treatment. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. Information was available in a range of formats if required. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it. People were supported to plan for important life changes.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients told us they had their tests completed and treatment plan explained to them, and they were satisfied with the standard of care. All patients reported that their care was good and they understood how busy everyone was.

Staff considered patients' individuals needs and preferences. They undertook risk assessments to identify specific needs such as nutrition, hydration, and pressure ulcers. We did note that patients remained on trolleys without appropriate pressure relieving mattresses’ whilst waiting for care or admission.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

All staff could articulate how their local communities had diverse health and care needs. A higher number of people over the age of 65 resided in the area and staff had good links with community services to support the population. All staff could give examples of patients who had varying level of need and could describe how they would accommodate them. This included patients with chronic and long-standing conditions that required a different approach.

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

All staff were able to describe how they made notifications to external bodies such as the local authority for safeguarding issues and to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA, previously Public Health England) for notifiable illnesses.

At the previous inspection we saw issues around information security, namely computers left unlocked. At this inspection we saw all computers locked when not in use and any other patient information was secured. Staff were trained in General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and understood how to report breaches and comply with principles.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. We saw the department consider varying levels of need to ensure equitable access across all patient groups.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. Information was readily available throughout all patient areas.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient groups such as easy-read form and other languages.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. Recent patient survey reported that 91% of survey patients and carer’s felt able to speak with staff regarding their health and care.

We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients and carers had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs. We saw staff offer patients opportunities to provide feedback. We also noted that the department conducted patient surveys to provide more opportunities to seek feedback.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from patients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. We saw actions the department had taken following feedback, for example we saw that they had introduced the system that allowed patients to wait elsewhere and to be informed when it was their turn to be seen.

All staff that we spoke with were able to articulate the complaints process and how they would facilitate patients making a complaint. We noted that staff would proactively request feedback and that equal importance was given to both positive and negative issues. We noted multiple examples of information regarding the complaints process distributed across the department.

We reviewed five complaints received by the department and found that all were managed appropriately and were investigated, actions identified and responded to within the appropriate timescale. Where learning was identified, actions were shared with staff.

Complaint responses included an apology and addressed the concerns raised.

All patients were given the opportunity by staff to give feedback, and staff would assist any patient to make a complaint or raise a concern.

We saw examples of feedback provided to patients who had complained or raised concerns.

Feedback was actively encouraged, and equal import was given to both good and negative feedback as it was an opportunity to learn and to improve.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. Any learning from complaints was discussed during safety huddles and was also disseminated by email to ensure all staff had access.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

All patients had an initial assessment within 10 minutes of arrival to department and typically were seen within an average time of 56 minutes which was better than the national average.

There was a requirement from 1 August 2025 was to hand over from ambulances within 45 minutes; staff considered this achievable as usually able to offload. The departments 1% campaign was to reduce ambulance handovers by 1% each week prior to this deadline.

79% of ambulance patients were handed over to hospital staff within 30 minutes, and 87% of the remaining patients were handed over within 60 minutes.

We saw that 85% of all patients were seen, received the required treatment and were discharged within four hours. The average time spent in department was 2 hours and 44 minutes which was better than the national average.

Nineteen percent of all patients seen were admitted which was lower than the national average of 27%. For those patient’s awaiting admission the trust had introduced ‘forward wait’. This meant that patients could wait on a ward, for up to two hours, whilst waiting for a discharged patient bed to be available. However, we did note there was lack of specialist review for patients in the emergency department whereby the decision to admit had been made. They remained under the care of emergency department staff whilst waiting in the department that staff reported increased the acuity of patients care needs in the department.

There were 8% of patients who left the department without being seen, which was higher than the national average of 5%.

We actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. We saw a proactive approach across all staff grades within the department to encourage feedback from all patients. They used a variety of tools to ensure all patients were given equal opportunity to raise concerns and for that information to be used.

All staff had the opportunity to undertake training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

The trust supported John’s Campaign and dementia forget-me-knot passports for patients attending with dementia symptoms. There were dementia friendly items although these were being refreshed at the time of inspection. Admiral nurses could be contacted to support if needed.

The frailty intervention team were a multidisciplinary team consisting of advanced nurse practitioners (ANP), clinicians, occupational therapists and physiotherapists. We did not see any therapists in the department during the inspection, however; patients were streamed to the frailty unit for referral to an allied health professional.

The trust supported those patients identified and recorded on the electronic record system with a learning disability. An automated referral could be sent to the learning disability matron for specialist support. Patients attending had the option to wait outside of the department (in their car if they choose), if a designated quiet area was not available. They were given a buzzer or could be alerted by phone when staff were ready to see them.

Paediatric patients with chronic health issues were given ‘open access’ meaning they could attend the paediatric ward rather than the emergency department.

We support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We saw examples of staff supporting patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. We saw the use of treatment escalation plans which were completed with patients.

Staff were able to articulate how they would care for people who are nearing the end of their life and how they would ensure that it is managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way, this included advanced care planning and respecting patient’s do not attempt resuscitation decisions.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. We observed patients being referred to appropriate specialties.