You are here

Epsom General Hospital Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on Announced visit 10 and 13 November 2015. We also undertook unannounced visits to the hospital on 21, 23 and 27 November 2015.

During a routine inspection

Epsom General Hospital is part of Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust. The trust provides local acute services for people living in the southwest London and northeast Surrey. Epsom General Hospital provides acute hospital services to population of around 180,000.

Epsom General Hospital is home to the South West Elective Orthopaedic Centre (SWLEOC), which is one of the largest hip and knee joint replacement centers in the UK. Most of the trust’s elective surgery is undertaken at Epsom General Hospital and the majority of emergency surgery is carried at the trust’s other location, St Helier Hospital and Queen Mary's Hospital for Children.

Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust employs around 5024.8 whole time equivalent (WTE) members of staff with approximately 705 staff working at Epsom General Hospital. We carried out an announced inspection of Epsom General Hospital between 10 and 13 November 2015.

We also undertook unannounced visits to the hospital on 21, 23, 25 and 27 November 2015. Overall, this hospital is rated as requires improvement. We found urgent and emergency care, surgery, critical care, maternity and gynaecology, services for children and young people required improvement. We found medical care, outpatients and diagnostic services and end of life care were good. We have rated the South a West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre as outstanding.

We found the care of patients was good, but the safety, effectiveness, responsiveness and leadership and management required improvement.

Our key findings were as follows:

Safe

  • Systems and processes were in place for reporting and investigating incidents but learning from incidents and complaints was inconsistent.
  • Low nurse staffing levels on some surgical and children wards meant there was a risk to the quality of patient care. There was also a large number of vacant medical staff posts and high use of locum doctors in paediatrics. However, the hospital had recently undergone a recruitment drive which had enabled it to fill some of its nursing and medical vacancies.
  • Cardiac monitors used in the majors area in ED were not fit for use and this had been an ongoing risk for over a year, without an adequate solution. Major incident equipment we observed was out of date and not ready for use in the event of a major incident.
  • Mandatory training completion rates were low.

  • The hospital was visibly clean. However data supplied by the trust indicated that wards repeatedly fell short of the infection prevention control compliance threshold. Staff reviewing patients on the unit did not always comply with infection control practices such as being bare below the elbow and hand washing.

  • Appropriate procedures and staffing were in place to prevent harm.

  • We identified gaps in record keeping and safe storage of medicines management in some areas.

Effective

  • Patient outcomes were good across most specialties and the trust performed well in national surgical audits. In the SWLEOC, patient outcomes and patient satisfaction consistently exceeded national averages.
  • We found staff appraisal completion rates were low.
  • There was a lack of clarity amongst some staff with regard to how the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards should be used
  • There was a lack of agreed guidelines specific to the critical care unit and no system to ensure consistency of care, even though three different consultants cared for patients in one day. The unit had a larger number of delayed discharges compared to similar units.
  • There was good multidisciplinary teamwork and collaborative care.

Caring

  • Patients and their relatives commented positively about the care they received and the attitude of the staff. Staff provided care in a compassionate and kind way that preserved patients’ dignity. Patients felt supported and involved in their care and treatment.
  • Whilst Family and Friend Test feedback was positive, the response rate was notably low.
  • Patients were kept informed of their treatment, given detailed information about their diagnosis, and given time to ask further questions.

Responsive

  • At Epsom ED for the 12 months between November 2014 and October 2015, 94% of patients were seen, admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours.
  • In all but neurology and dermatology, the medical directorate achieved the 18 week referral to treatment standard. The average length of stay at Epsom was slightly longer for non-elective care than the England average.
  • The medical directorate was slow to respond to complaints, achieving an 8% response rate within designated timescales.
  • Not all women received one to one care in labour.
  • National waiting times were met for outpatient appointments and access to diagnostic imaging although the wait for MRI services had increased.
  • A higher percentage of patients were seen within two weeks for all cancers than the national average, but the cancer waiting times for people waiting less than 31 days from diagnosis to first definitive treatment and the proportion of people waiting less than 62 days from urgent GP referral to first definitive treatment were both below the national average.

Well-led

  • Vision and strategy within departments were not well developed or known by all staff.
  • There were good local governance structures and reporting mechanisms in place, however we found a lack of responsiveness to some known challenges and concerns.
  • In critical care, the strategy for the unit had not been agreed due to difficulties in reaching an agreement among the critical care workforce across the two sites and staff were not aware of the vision for the unit. Not all risk had been identified on the risk register and some risk had been on the register for some time and senior staff were still unclear on the timescale to address these risks.
  • The trust monitored maternity services based on merged data from both maternity units. This was misleading because the units were very different, with different staff and serving different populations.
  • The hospital had a number of innovative projects underway, including some related to patients living with dementia. We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:
  • The leadership of the outpatients and diagnostic imaging teams was outstanding with staff inspired to provide an excellent service, with the patient at the centre.
  • The diagnostic imaging department worked hard to reduce the patient radiation doses and had presented this work at national and international conferences. However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice, including:

  • The leadership of the outpatients and diagnostic imaging teams was outstanding with staff inspired to provide an excellent service, with the patient at the centre.
  • The diagnostic imaging department worked hard to reduce the patient radiation doses and had presented this work at national and international conferences.
  • The safety and leadership of the SWLEOC, where outcomes for patients were consistently excellent and based on national guidelines.

However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the trust must:

  • Ensure there are adequate numbers of nurses and midwives to deliver safe and quality care.
  • Implement agreed guidelines specific to the critical care units.
  • Ensure the management, governance and culture in the critical care units, supports the delivery of high quality care.
  • Obtain feedback from patients/relatives in the critical care units, so as to improve the quality of the service.
  • Identify, analyse and manage all risks of harm to women in maternity services
  • Ensure identified risks in maternity services are always reflected on the risk register and timely action is taken to manage these risks.

  • Improve the quality and accuracy of performance data and increase its use in identifying poor performance and areas for improvement.

In addition the trust should:

  • Ensure cardiac monitors used in the majors area in ED and major incident equipment are fit and ready for use in the event of a major incident.
  • Ensure the target for 85% compliance for mandatory training is met.
  • Ensure staff always comply with infection control practices.
  • Ensure child protection notifications from the trust are up to date.
  • Ensure staff appraisals are completed as required.
  • Ensure all relevant staff are clear about how the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards should be used.
  • Ensure there are agreed guidelines specific to the critical care unit and that there are systems to ensure consistency of care.
  • Improve the response times to complaints in the medical directorate.
  • Ensure all women receive one to one care in labour.
  • Improve the 31 day cancer waiting times for people waiting from diagnosis to first definitive treatment and the 62 day waiting time for people waiting from urgent GP referral to first definitive treatment.
  • In critical care, ensure there is an agreed strategy for the unit that includes the critical care workforce across the two sites and that all risks are identified and on the risk register.
  • In maternity, ensure monitoring data is separated by location.
  • Improve and strengthen governance within the ED.
  • Develop the leadership skills of labour ward coordinators to prepare them for this role and hold them accountable for their performance.
  • Monitor action plans to ensure timely response to risk actions.
  • Ensure the consultant hours in the emergency department meet the RCEM recommendation of 16 hours a day, seven days a week of clinical consultant working.
  • Ensure that the paediatric emergency department complies with Royal College of Paediatric and Child Health staffing guidelines.
  • Ensure all staff working with children are adequately trained to an agreed and measureable standard.
  • Ensure there are appropriate processes and monitoring arrangements to reduce the number of cancelled outpatient appointments and ensure patients have timely and appropriate follow up.
  • Increase the number of sonographers in radiology.
  • Improve compliance with all stages of the World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist across all surgery services.
  • Ensure local anaesthesia drugs are stored separately from general anaesthesia drugs in all operating theatres.
  • Take further steps to update and improve operating theatre infrastructure and equipment.
  • Improve scheduling of surgical procedures to improve theatre utilisation and efficiency.
  • Ensure all reported risks in surgery services are addressed in a timely way.
  • There is access to seven day week working for radiology services.
  • Staffing is improved in radiology for sonographers.
  • Improve the response rate of patient feedback.
  • Ask patients and relatives for feedback on critical care.

  • There are appropriate processes and monitoring arrangements to reduce the number of cancelled outpatient appointments and ensure patients have timely and appropriate follow up.
  • There are appropriate processes and monitoring arrangements in place to improve the 32 and 61 day cancer targets in line with national targets.
  • There is improved access for beds to clinical areas in diagnostic imaging.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Inspection carried out on 6, 7, 20 February 2014

During a themed inspection looking at Dementia Services

We visited the Accident and Emergency department, Alexandra ward and Chuter Ede (Acute Medical Unit) as part of this unannounced inspection of Epsom General Hospital. We spoke with twelve people using the service, eight relatives or friends of people using the service, sixteen staff members and four senior managers during our three visits. Comment cards were received from seven people using the service or their relatives or friends and three staff members following the inspection.

People using the service told us that staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect saying "The care is very good, no complaints", "I can’t fault anything as staff are good and the food is good" and “The care is wonderful”. One person told us that they hoped the care people got at care homes “Was as good as here”.

Relatives or friends told us “I have watched with amazement the patience and dedication shown by staff on the ward” and "They do get good care here”, “The treatment for people with dementia is probably as good as resources allow” and “Staff are nice…some are better than others yet overall they are caring”.

Both people using the service and their relatives or friends said that staff on the medical wards were always very busy and said they sometimes had trouble finding the right staff member to talk to on the ward about the care and treatment being provided. Some people told us that the days could be ‘boring’ and there was nothing provided to positively engage people living with dementia apart from the bedside televisions provided. We saw that there were opportunities to make the A&E and wards more dementia friendly.

Staff spoken to said that their experience was that people living with dementia were treated with dignity and respect at the hospital. Staff working on Alexandra ward in particular reported on the improvements made within the last year saying “I’ve seen a dramatic improvement”, “The ward has come a long way” and “There is a good team now”. Feedback from staff on both medical wards however was that they would welcome more time to spend with people living with dementia. Comments included “Staff on the ward endeavour to provide high quality care but there is just not enough of them” and “Not enough staff to cope with complex needs”.

The provider should note that shortfalls were identified about how the mental health, emotional and personal history and presentation of people living with dementia was assessed and met. The absence of assessment information was reflected in the quality of the care plans seen for people when these were available. We did not find any specific care plans identifying the person’s emotional and behavioural presentation, their responses to staff interventions or how their care should be delivered.

The enthusiasm and commitment of the lead consultant geriatrician and the lead nurse for care of the elderly was noted during this inspection. Their ongoing work included arranging a dementia open day at the hospital, delivering induction sessions to new staff and developing the dementia pathway for people using the service.

It was noted that the Trust had a dementia action plan for Epsom General Hospital in place and it intended to build on existing good practice to create a more effective service for local people living with dementia. However, we did not find evidence that the action plan was being prioritised at all levels of the Trust.

Inspection carried out on 29, 30 October 2012

During a routine inspection

Patients and visiting relatives told us staff that worked on the wards we visited were kind and caring. One person said “the staff on the ward are brilliant”, and a visiting relative told us “all the staff I have met here are wonderful. I could not fault any of them”. Another person said “Nurses are wonderful, marvellous. They go out of their way to help”. Another person said “The whole staff are really good and really helpful. (They) look after us and really good’. Another person told us “Staff are very pleasant and reassuring and feel I can confide in them”. They also told us about the care they had received and said they were “perfectly happy with it. I have been well looked after”.

Most people told us they felt they had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment at the hospital. They said doctors explained things clearly to them so that they understood what was happening. Most told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect. One person said “Staff show deference to you when they are going to do something”. Another person said “Staff are really good about maintaining privacy and close bedside curtains when they are giving care”.

Most people told us they would complain to nursing staff and the complaint would be listened to and acted on. However only a few people told us they had seen a complaints procedure or had been advised about how to make a complaint. Most people said they were sure they could find out if they needed to.

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We inspected Epsom Hospital on the 24th of May 2011 and found that improvements were needed. Policies and procedures were in place to help to ensure that children were protected from the risk of abuse. However, there were shortfalls in staff training regarding the protection of adults and therefore the potential for vulnerable adults to be at risk.

We carried out this review, which did not include a site visit or talking to people at Epsom Hospital, to look specifically at all the actions the provider told us they had taken to achieve compliance with the essential standards of quality and safety.

Inspection carried out on 21 March 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Termination of Pregnancy Services

We did not speak to people who used this service as part of this review. We looked at a random sample of medical records. This was to check that current practice ensured that no treatment for the termination of pregnancy was commenced unless two certificated opinions from doctors had been obtained.

Inspection carried out on 24 May 2011

During a routine inspection

Generally the people that we spoke with during our visit were very happy with the treatment and care that they received at this hospital. Many of them perceived it as being their local community hospital and told us that they preferred it there rather than other hospitals that they could have gone to. They said it was always very clean and we saw that there were good measures in place with regard to infection control, with hand washing facilities and antibacterial gel available. We noted that it was well signposted and there were several toilets for visitors use.

Most people considered that they were given the opportunity discuss their treatment options with the doctors and that they were kept informed about what was happening, although some highlighted the fact that it was more difficult at the weekends, when there were fewer staff around. They knew what their medication had been prescribed for, they received it on time and they were not ever left in pain.

Feedback that we received about the staff, especially the nurses, was very positive with people telling us how kind they were “even though they are sometimes rushed off their feet” and “they have such a good sense of humour”.

We asked people about the food that was served in the hospital; most of them said it was “good” or “quite good” although there were also some adverse comments. On the wards we visited we saw that the food was hot, looked appetising and portion sizes were appropriate. There were no problems experienced by those people who needed special diets or a vegetarian option.

We have highlighted the need to ensure that those people who are need of assistance, to ensure that their nutritional needs are met, are appropriately supported.

People that we spoke with said that they felt very safe in the hospital and had not witnessed anything of concern. However, we found that some of the staff lacked knowledge around adult protection issues and there appeared to e some shortfalls in training with regard to this. We have asked The Trust to provide us with information about how this will be addressed.

We also raised some concerns about patient confidentiality. Male and female patients were all being nursed in single sex wards or bays and had separate toilet facilities however, in several areas of the hospital; there is limited room available for staff to speak in private with patients and conversations, which may often be difficult, can be overheard.