• Hospital
  • NHS hospital

Archived: St Mark's Hospital

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ (020) 8864 3232

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 at St Mark's Hospital between 20 and 23 May 2014. St Mark's Hospital specialises in gastro-intestinal services and sits within the main trust location at Northwick Park Hospital.

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 is an internationally-renowned centre for specialist care for bowel diseases. The trust has a sustainable clinical strategy with Ealing Hospital that improves 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.

Overall, we found the services provided at St Mark's Hospital require improvement to ensure that they are safe, effective and well-led. All services at this hospital were rated as requiring improvement due to lack of staff and coherent processes.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There was inadequate staffing on Frederick Salmon Ward.
  • Patients were transferred out of the high dependency unit (HDU) to wards in which staff did not feel confident to manage their conditions. 
  • There was a lack of junior doctors, and this affected teaching and appraisal opportunities.
  • There were delays in emergency surgery taking place.
  • Outpatients clinics in the main outpatients department often ran late and appointments were cancelled, sometimes at very short notice.
  • Clinics were often overbooked and the delays were not always clearly explained to the patients.
  • Staffing was not always sufficiently organised to support and respond to patients waiting for treatment.

We saw areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the trust must:

  • Ensure that there are adequate numbers of medical and nursing staff on Frederick Salmon Ward to provide care for patients.

In addition the trust should:

  • Review the discharge arrangements for patients transferring from HDU facilities, to ensure appropriately trained staff are available to provide safe care.
  • Review the availability of elective surgery allocations.
  • Review the booking of outpatients appointments to reduce the cancellations and waiting times experienced by patients.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

17 February 2014

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we visited the outpatients department and the two inpatient wards, Jonson Ward and Frederick Salmon Ward. We spoke with four patients and two relatives in outpatients, five patients in Frederick Salmon Ward and three patients in Jonson Ward.

Patients told us that they had on the whole been treated with respect and dignity. They had received the information they needed regarding their medical conditions and they had been involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

Patients we spoke with were generally satisfied with the care and treatment provided. The medical and nursing records contained essential information regarding assessments carried out, treatment provided and the subsequent progress of patients.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable regarding their clinical roles and responsibilities. Patients were positive about the staff and expressed confidence in them. Essential training had been provided for staff.

The premises were clean and staff were aware of measures to reduce the spread of infection. Regular infection control audits had been carried out.

The hospital had a complaints procedure. However, although all complaints had been acknowledged within 3 working days, nearly fifty percent of complaints received had not been fully investigated and complainants informed of the outcome within 28 days. We further noted that there was no consistent and effective system for monitoring and ensuring that action plans were drawn up and monitored where areas for improvement were identified.

27 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this unannounced inspection to check if the provider had complied with a compliance action from a previous inspection of the service carried out in March 2013. We spoke with the Director of Governance, the Modern Matron, three nurses and five doctors. We checked the records of four patients. We did this to make a judgement as to whether the provider was meeting Regulation 18 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 (Outcome 2 - Consent to care and treatment).

From the interviews with staff and documented evidence provided, we found that the provider had responded appropriately and complied with the compliance action made.

14 March 2013

During a routine inspection

The inspection team was led by a compliance inspector who was joined by another compliance inspector. We inspected the diagnostic procedures and screening unit, where we focused on the pathway of day case patients from admission to their discharge. We also inspected the hospital's inpatient ward, Frederick Salmon Ward.

Patients told us that they received the information they needed and had been fully involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients were positive about the staff that had supported them, and told us they received treatment and advice from a variety of health and social care professionals.

Patients told us they felt safe and knew who to talk to if they had any worries or concerns. Staff numbers and skill mix met people's varied needs. Staff knew about their roles and responsibilities in meeting the needs of patients, and had a good understanding of their needs.

Areas inspected were clean. We saw that staff were aware of infection control procedures which meant the risk of spreading infections was minimised.

People were asked for their consent in relation to their care and treatment. However, it was not evident that a patient had consented not to be resuscitated.

Records were stored securely and up to date.

23 February 2012

During a routine inspection

Patients confirmed that their dignity and privacy was respected and they were addressed in a polite and sensitive manner. Information was provided to enable people to be involved in their treatment or care and good communication was promoted by facilitating discussions with patients in their first language. Patients confirmed that 'I am asked for my consent'. They said that explanations of procedures had been given to them in a way that they could understand. They were satisfied that they had been 'kept informed at every stage' and one person spoke of their care having been co-ordinated in a positive way.

Generally patients were satisfied with the meals served and confirmed that there was choice on the menu. They told us that they felt safe. They found the staff approachable and were confident that they would be listened to if they had a concern. Any side-effects of the medication that they were taking had been explained to them and they were able to tell us what medication had been prescribed. They said that staff were 'very good' and nurses were described as 'friendly and enthusiastic'. One patient said his experience on the ward had been 'fantastic' and he thanked the surgeon for 'saving my life'. When asked about staffing levels people told us that staff usually responded to call bells reasonably quickly although two patients thought that night staff found it difficult to keep an eye on a particular patient with dementia and referred to incidents that had taken place. (This was addressed by additional support being provided to the other patient).

Patients had opportunities to give feedback on the service provided both during their stay and on discharge from hospital. Overall they were satisfied with the service provided and told us 'I have nothing but excellent service', 'staff couldn't do enough to help me' and 'I have nothing but praise for the hospital and staff'.