The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • NHS hospital

Archived: Central Middlesex Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Acton Lane, Park Royal, London, NW10 7NS (020) 8869 3493

Provided and run by:
North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

Important: This service is now managed by a different provider - see new profile

All Inspections

20-23 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this comprehensive inspection because North West London Hospitals NHS Trust had been identified as potentially high risk on the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) Intelligent Monitoring system. We undertook an announced inspection between 20 and 23 May 2014. 

North West London Hospitals NHS Trust is located in the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow, and cares for more than half a million people living across the two boroughs, as well as patients from all over the country and internationally. The North West London Hospitals NHS Trust manages three main sites registered with the Care Quality Commission: Northwick Park Hospital and St Mark’s Hospital in Harrow, and Central Middlesex Hospital in Park Royal. St Mark’s Hospital as an internationally-renowned centre for specialist care for bowel diseases. The trust has a sustainable clinical strategy with Ealing Hospital to improve patient pathways, underpinned by combined ICT and estate strategies, and a vision to establish Northwick Park Hospital as the major acute hospital of choice for outer North West London.

The services provided at Central Middlesex Hospital were rated as good, apart from critical care and services provided for children and young people. This was due to the lack of paediatric nurses and equipment available in the outpatients clinics. The new building provided good facilities and enhanced the way staff felt about providing good care. However, there was a general concern among staff about the future of the hospital.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Staff were caring and provided individualised care to patients.
  • The hospital was clean, and patients were complimentary about the food provided.
  • Staffing levels were sufficient in most areas for care to be given in a timely manner.
  • Outpatient facilities for children were not utilised, and paediatric nurses were not available in the outpatients department.
  • A&E services were a mixture of acute A&E services and a minor injuries unit. This could lead to confusion for the local population as to the services provided on site at any particular time.
  • Staff felt disconnected with the main trust site.

We saw an area of outstanding practice including:

  • The STARRS service had strong ownership by geriatricians and the multi-disciplinary team. The team was aware of the needs of frail elderly patients who attend A&E. It was introduced by the trust and its partners to mitigate one of the pressures on the A&E service and the hospital's beds.

There were areas of poor practice, where the trust needs to make improvements.

The trust should:

  • Review the lack of a paediatric nurse in the children’s outpatient department.
  • Ensure that critical care services are audited in line with others, so that benchmarking can take place to drive improvement.
  • Review the end of life care provision at this hospital, so that patients receive intervention at an appropriate stage.
  • Ensure that departments where children are treated are child-friendly.
  • Review epilepsy services for children to ensure that current guidance is in place.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

28 January 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection team was led by a compliance inspector who was joined by three other compliance inspectors and a compliance manager. We inspected the Roundwood suite which consisted of four general inpatient wards and two other general medical wards (Gladstone 3 and 4). The Accident & Emergency department was also inspected.

We spoke with eighteen patients, four visitors, eight nurses, two doctors, five healthcare assistants, two physiotherapists, a domestic manager, a ward domestic cleaner, four catering staff, a receptionist and a senior clinical nurse practitioner.

Patients told us that they had generally been kept well informed and fully involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients were asked for their consent prior to receiving treatment.

Patients and records confirmed patients's needs were assessed, and their treatment planned and reviewed. People received treatment and advice from a variety of health and social care professionals.

Patients chose what they wanted to eat and were generally satisfied with the food and spoke positively about the cleanliness of the environment. Staff were aware of infection control procedures.

Patients generally knew who to talk to if they had any complaints.

Staff received appropriate training and staff numbers and skills mix met people's varied needs. Staff had a good understanding of the varied needs of patients.

Records we examined were accurate and fit for purpose.

24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

The inspection team was led by a compliance inspector who was joined by two other compliance inspectors and a practising professional with operating theatre experience. We inspected two general in-patient wards and an operating theatre including the recovery area. We looked at the process of patients being admitted, treated and discharged when they had an operation at the hospital as a day case patient and as an in-patient.

Patients were generally satisfied with the care and treatment that they received. Patients told us that they were asked for their consent prior to medical or surgical procedures and were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients and records confirmed people's needs were assessed, and their treatment was planned and reviewed. People received treatment and advice from a variety of health and social care professionals.

Patients told us that they could choose what to eat, and were generally satisfied with the food.

People spoke positively about the environment. Areas inspected were clean. We saw that staff were aware of infection control procedures which meant the risk of spreading infections was minimised. People told us they felt safe and knew who to talk to if they had any worries or concerns.

Staff received appropriate training and staff numbers and skills mix met people's varied needs. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to make improvements when needed.

10 June 2011

During a routine inspection

The majority of patients and relatives we spoke to were happy with the care and treatment they received and the way they were treated by staff. For example, one older patient told us, 'I love the nurses they make such a fuss of me' and another said of staff, 'I feel that they do care.' A third patient told us that care went beyond her expectations: 'My husband was dying at another hospital and they arranged for a special taxi to take me there to visit him. I didn't ask for it, they organised it.' There were mixed views on the meals provided. Some patients described the food as 'very good' or 'very nice', whilst others were less positive. One young person said the food 'was not particularly good' and brought money with her so she could buy her own food. Patients generally had trust and confidence in the health professionals caring for them and said that treatment had been clearly explained to them. The hospital was described as 'very clean' by everyone we spoke to.