What our icons mean
|Outstanding – the service is performing exceptionally well.|
|Good – the service is performing well and meeting our expectations.|
Ticks and crosses
|The service must make improvements.|
We inspected the emergency department as an unannounced responsive inspection on 7 March 2018 in response to concerns regarding patient safety and how responsive the department were to people’s needs. We had previously inspected the urgent and emergency care service in November 2017, when we rated the service overall as requires improvement and inadequate in terms of patient safety. At this inspection we looked at specific areas of concern including: patient safety, medicines, staffing levels, the environment, infection prevention and control, record keeping, mandatory training of staff, how services were planned, whether services met patients’ individual needs and how the flow of patient through the department was managed. We wanted to make sure patients were receiving safe care that was responsive to their needs.
We did not re-rate urgent and emergency care at the time of this inspection. We found the following areas for improvement:
We had concerns about the safety of patients in the department. This was for a number of reasons. The department did not have enough capacity to accommodate all the patients requiring treatment.
Patients waited a long time to receive medicines such as pain relief. Handover, initial assessment and responsibility for patients was not happening in a timely manner. Ambulance staff were waiting with patients for excessively long times in the department.
Records were not completed in a comprehensive way and risk assessments were not documented as being carried out.
Infection prevention and control practices were not following national guidance: staff were not always washing their hands, using gloves appropriately or arms bare below the elbow. The department was not always as clean as it should be with dirty rooms and smears of bodily fluids on walls.
There were insufficient staff deployed to the department and from the evidence we looked at, this had been a long-term issue.
Staff were not up to date with their mandatory training.
We had concerns about the responsiveness of the department. It was not able to meet the demand from the number of patients attending. The department had severe problems with capacity.
The hospital was also full to capacity and as a result, emergency department patients were waiting for long periods of time in corridors before being admitted to wards. There was poor flow through the department on to wards and from wards to home. From what we saw and what staff told us, the whole flow of the system did not appear to be working well.
The department was performing poorly against national government performance indicators such as waiting time targets. This meant patients did not have access to treatment and care in a timely manner.
There was no system of data validation in place to ensure waiting time information was accurately reflecting the time patients spent in the department.
Escalation processes in place were not effective and patients were waiting excessive time in the department as a result.
Staff were working extremely hard to deliver care that was caring and compassionate under very difficult circumstances.
We observed staff helping patients and supporting them as best they could.
Nursing and medical staff worked well together and were doing the best they could for patients.
There were areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.
Importantly, the trust must:
Ensure sufficient medical and nursing staff are deployed in the department to meet the need of patients.
Prescribe and administer pain relief in a timely way to ensure patients are not left in pain for long periods of time.
Improve the triage process and take responsibility for patients brought to the department by ambulance and as soon as handover has been carried out, administer their medicines and manage their needs.
Improve the quality of record keeping and storage of paper records to ensure no information is lost or misfiled. This includes completion of risk assessments, safeguarding, mental capacity assessments and National Early Warning Scores (NEWS).
Adhere to infection prevention and control standards including cleaning of rooms, and following hand hygiene and other infection control processes.
Improve data validation oversight.
Improve the escalation process to ensure senior decision makers are involved in the process as soon as possible.
Make sure processes for the management of medicines is robust; that expired drugs are removed and replaced and oral medicines are dated and disposed of once expired.
Ensure all staff follow the same triage process and assess patients in order of urgency and not chronology.
Ensure patients receiving treatment have privacy and their dignity respected.
Work towards improving performance against national standards such as the time from arrival to treatment and median total time in the department.
Work collaboratively with other departments around the hospital to improve the length of time patients wait to see specialist medical staff and reduce the length of time before a decision whether to admit or not is made.
In addition, the trust should:
Work towards a system, such as a patient group direction, that allows simple medicines such as pain relief to be given by nurses without the need for a doctor’s prescription.
Continue the work being carried out to ensure staff attend their mandatory training in a timely manner.
Consider having a robust process in place to ensure cannulas are checked for early signs of infection.
Have a robust system in place to support patients who are self-medicating in the department whilst waiting for treatment.
Monitor ambient temperature in clinic rooms to ensure medicines are stored within their recommended temperature ranges.
Have a process for monitoring the compliance of staff against the hospital policy of prescribing all oxygen.
Have a robust process for making sure all appropriate sepsis patients are started on the sepsis pathway.
Have a robust process to make sure controlled drugs are routinely checked in line with trust policy.
Ensure ‘corridor’ nurses are fully aware of the ‘tag’ process should they need to leave their designated corridor area.
Consider raising the profile of patients living with dementia or a learning disability, or others with additional needs to improve the support they receive in the department.
Explore alternative ways of discharging patients waiting for social care packages to improve flow through the emergency department.
Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)
We rated the hospital as requires improvement overall which is no change from the last inspection in November 2015. The same four of the five domains were judged to be requiring improvement with the caring domain rated as good. Urgent care services had a worse rating in safety being rated as inadequate from requires improvement last inspection and surgery had changed to an inadequate from requires improvement in safety and being well led.
However the regional spinal injuries service had improved from inadequate ratings in safety and being well-led to good across all domains. Medicine remained in the same ratings for all domains. Critical care services had improved in safe effective and well led to a good rating but continued to require improvement in responsiveness. Outpatient services remained at a rating of requires improvement in safety but had improved to good in all other domains. End of life services continued with good ratings in all domains.
Our key findings since our last inspection were as follows:
We found evidence of significant flow issues and significant delays for patients during our inspection. Higher (worse) than average numbers of patients were waiting between four and 12 hours to be admitted into the hospital following a decision being made. The department was not meeting the Department of Health target to admit, treat or discharge 95% of patients within four hours. We saw patients waiting in corridors in public areas which we were concerned impacted negatively on their privacy and dignity. We saw some elements of sepsis care which were worse than the regional average. Re-attendance rates for patients were consistently higher (worse than) than the national average. We also saw an example of poor management of a patient suffering with sepsis. National audits were undertaken which highlighted poor performance in a number of areas but action to improve care in these areas was not sufficient.
Staff did not have a focused approach to reviewing mortality. Although most areas were visibly clean, the floor of a storeroom was not, with debris and dust on the floor and around equipment. Some major incident equipment was stored in a disorganised way with items piled high and unlabelled.
Patient records were not audited the records we reviewed showed that tools to manage risks to patients such as observations, risk assessments and early warning scores were not always recorded. Although national and local guidelines and care pathways were in place, they also were not always evidenced in records.
Compliance with mandatory training did not meet the trust target of 90%. We shared staff concerns that medical staffing levels were low and at times appeared unsafe. Although nurse staffing levels were adequate, sickness levels were higher than the NHS national average.
Staff were open to risk because of a lack of security arrangements on site. Staff felt leaders from the executive team were not supportive and that the culture was reactive with action taken ‘too little, too late’, rather than having a proactive approach.
North West Spinal Injuries Unit
Following a rating of inadequate during the inspection in November 2014, the service is now rated as good overall because the trust had invested significantly in nurse staffing and we saw that the staffing ratios had increased to adequate levels. The centre had a dedicated spinal medical team with on-site medical cover between the hours of 9am and 9pm Monday to Friday. Out of hours the centre was supported via spinal on-call including a consultant and the trust out of hours hospital at night team.
They had renamed the former intensive care and high dependency units as it was revealed that intensive care was not delivered at the centre. The centre demonstrated a clear admission policy with strong individual assessment for admission in accordance with the national clinical reference group classification for clinical priority. There was also a focus on discharge planning and there was good multidisciplinary working to support this. A case manager facilitated the discharge process. The consultants reviewed their patients six monthly or annually to ensure patients were reaching their goals.
In March 2016 the safety thermometer showed harm free care had been provided for pressure ulcers, catheter acquired urinary tract infections and VTE assessments. There had only been one fall with harm. Since the last inspection staff had been supported to manage patients with challenging behaviour. The partnership working document was discussed with all patients on admission and an explanation given regarding expected behaviour in line with the trust’s violence and aggression policy.
We found that not all wards appeared clean and well maintained. Equipment was left on wards and outside in corridors, and not all staff followed staff hygiene practices as they did not always wear suitable protective equipment between providing care and treatment to patients. There had been no formal process since July 2015 to April 2016, to ensure that the quality of care on the medical wards was maintained by senior managers and that all trust policies and procedures were being adhered to. Nurse staffing establishment levels across all wards was variable. All wards we visited had vacancies that were being filled by either staff working extra hours or agency workers. Consultant vacancy rates across medical services in March 2016 were high at 30%, and had been deemed as a high risk on the risk register. There was limited consultant cover on medical wards at weekends, and no ward rounds took place.
Mandatory training statistics showed that only one medical ward had achieved the trust target of 90% in mandatory training in the period of October 2015 to February 2016. Staff training in some core areas was below the trust targets and staff reported that they had to cancel training due to low staffing levels. Not all staff had received an annual personal development review.
Initial patient risk assessments were not consistently completed for example VTE assessments. Access and flow throughout medical services was poor and so patients were being cared for and treated on wards that were not appropriate to their needs. Due to a high demand for beds throughout the Hospital, some areas of the hospital were being used inappropriately to care and treat patients. For example the GPAU and the discharge lounge were being used as bedded areas. Escalation wards did not provide all the necessary amenities to ensure a high quality service was experienced by all patients, and call bells were not always in reach of patients.
There was inadequate storage for staff belongings on the ward which posed a security issue for staff. There was no security team on site to ensure the safety of staff and visitors in the event of violence and aggression from patients or visitors. There had been 76 police call outs to the trust, with the main reason being due to physical abuse/violence from patients to staff.
Safety did not have a sufficient priority across surgical services. Systems and processes were not always reliable to keep people safe. Incidents were not always properly identified and we saw evidence of previous incidents being repeated. Risk assessments were not always completed and mitigation of identified risk did not always take place. Medically deteriorating patients were not always identified promptly, nor did they always receive the prompt medical attention the required, once they were identified. The mortality and morbidity of surgical specialties are not reviewed by the trust board.
Staffing levels on wards were frequently insufficient and these were not addressed quickly. Staff were distressed at the low staffing levels and the heavy workload. We observed the impact that the low staffing levels had on patient safety and patients’ needs being met.
In addition to the above issues, matters identified during the previous inspection remained evident. There were problems with the replacement of theatre equipment and there was still no pager system in place which had connectivity across the entire hospital.
There was no clear vision about the future of surgical services across the trust. However, decisions about the future of surgical services could only be made as part of a decision in the wider healthcare economy. Significant issues that threatened the delivery of safe and effective care were not identified and adequate action to manage them was not always taken. There was also a combative approach to dealing with disciplinary matters across the division for both nursing and medical staff.
There were poor patient outcomes as indicated by high elective readmission rates and poor performance in national audit programmes. We found that nutrition and hydration needs were not always addressed. In addition staff were not implementing trust policy for fasting guidelines prior to surgery, meaning that people were being left longer than recommended without fluids.
They experienced significant difficulties with patient flow. Services were not organised efficiently. This further exacerbated patient flow issues. Surgical services did not always meet the individual needs of patients who had complex requirements. Complaints were not used as a means of improving services.
The critical care services were previously rated as ‘requires improvement’ for responsive following our last inspection because we had concerns around delayed discharges and the provision of single sex accommodation. During this inspection, we found that significant improvements had been made to reduce the number of delayed discharges. However, further improvements were still needed to ensure patients received appropriate care.
The services provided care and treatment that followed national clinical guidelines and staff used care pathways effectively. The services performed in line with expected levels for most performance measures in the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) audit. Patient’s relatives spoke positively about the care and treatment they received.
Patient safety was monitored and incidents were investigated to assist learning and improve care. Patients received care in safe, clean and suitably maintained premises. There were systems in place to manage resource and capacity risks and to manage patients whose condition was deteriorating. The staffing levels and skills mix was sufficient to meet patients’ needs and staff assessed and responded to patient’s risks. The consultants covering the unit during out of hours were also responsible for other areas, such as providing anaesthetic cover for the surgical and maternity services however, there was a second on-call consultant to provide additional cover and support. There was one speech and language therapist across the hospital during weekdays. This meant staff on the unit occasionally experienced a delayed response after referring patients for this service.
There was effective teamwork and clearly visible leadership within the services. Most staff were positive about the culture within the critical care services and the level of support they received from their managers. Key risks to the services, audit findings and quality and performance was monitored though routine departmental and divisional quality and governance meetings.
End of Life
The previous ‘requires improvement’ rating was due to safety incidents not being communicated with the trust board. This has since been addressed, however other issues of concern were found.
We raised a control of infection issue in the eye clinic that was raised during the inspection. The trust responded quickly and an action plan to improve was put in place; however, some issues were not addressed.
The hospital performed well against national targets. Waiting times for appointments were better than average with 50% of patients receiving an appointment within five weeks of referral. Radiology figures were excellent for both receiving appointments and results. In the last 12 months, less than 1% of patients waited six weeks for a radiology appointment.
There were a large number of appointment cancellations that had a variety of causes including IT issues and patients receiving multiple appointments in error. However, managers were gathering evidence and had set improvement targets
Some areas of mandatory training showed poor results and managers acknowledged that work was needed.
The outpatient improvement project was still progressing from 2014; changes had been made to the environment, clinical coding and staffing ratios. Phase four had been suspended due to staffing issues, which was to address the high cancellation numbers.
However, there were areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.
In Urgent and Emergency Services
The service must ensure mortality is discussed monthly and minutes taken to evidence discussion.
The service must ensure mandatory training compliance reaches and consistently achieves the trust target.
The service must ensure appropriate signage is displayed in areas where close circuit television cameras are used.
The service must ensure the actions identified following our concerns about the death of a patient during our inspection, are implemented in accordance with planned timescales
The service must ensure all patients receive timely (particularly initial) observations whilst in the department
The service must ensure staff use and evidence use of the sepsis care pathway for patients suffering sepsis.
The service must increase middle grade staffing to ensure rotas can be planned without the routine use of consultants or junior doctors to back fill vacant middle grade shifts. Where it is not possible to recruit staff, ensure suitable alternative and sustainable solutions are identified and implemented.
The service must ensure action plans following CEM audits target areas of poor performance and improve practice.
The service must ensure staff make use of the trust capacity assessment documents when required and properly evidence that where a patient lacks capacity best interests have been adequately considered.
The service must improve performance, particularly in relation to the department of health four hour target, wait times following a decision to admit, ambulance handovers.
The service must ensure robust processes are in place to mitigate risks to staff in relation to violence in the work place.
The service must improve the organisation of major incident equipment in the store room.
The service must develop and embed a clear escalation process with identified actions for managers and executives.
The service must take action to ensure that there are adequate staffing levels present on all wards to provide safe level of care and treatment for the acuity and dependency of the patients on the wards.
The service must take action to ensure that Oxygen is prescribed to patients, in line with recommended guidelines, prior to administration.
The service must take action to ensure that all patients, particularly those who are very confused and able to wander off a ward, are cared for in a secure environment.
The service must take action to ensure that a system of feedback is in place for staff who have reported incidents.
The service must take action to ensure that medically deteriorating patients are always identified as they deteriorate and are medically reviewed in line with trust policy.
The service must take action to ensure that mortality and morbidity events in surgical services are reported to the trust board.
Surgical services must take action to ensure that the plan for the replacement of old theatre equipment is implemented.
Surgical services must take action to ensure that all risk assessments are appropriately completed for patients.
Surgical services must take action to ensure that a system is in place to identify trends and reasons for the high readmissions rates in elective surgery.
Surgical services must take action to develop an action plan to reduce the high readmission rate in elective surgery.
Surgical services must take action to improve performance in relation to the indicators in the following national audits,
-The national emergency laparotomy audit
-The national bowel audit
-The national lung cancer audit
-The national hip fracture audit
Surgical services must take action to ensure that patients are being fasted for surgery in accordance with national guidelines and trust policy.
Surgical services must take action to ensure that the surgical admissions process is designed to facilitate a timely flow through the surgical process.
Surgical services must take action to ensure that patients are cared for in treatment areas with full access to toilet facilities and meals.
Surgical services must take action to ensure that care is provided to patients with complex needs in a manner that is responsive to the needs that they have.
Surgical services must take action to ensure that patients with dementia and other cognitive impairments are cared for on wards that take account of these needs in terms of physical environment.
Surgical services should use service user complaints about to drive service improvements.
In End of Life Care
The service must improve the consistent use and completion of formal pain assessment; assessment of nutritional and hydration status in the community; mental capacity assessments when indicated on the DNACPR.
The service must take action to ensure that all staff have the up to date training they require to be able to safely care and treat patients and performance development reviews are in line with trust policy.
The service must take action to ensure that all wards and corridors are clean and well maintained, and equipment is stored appropriately.
The service must ensure that all records relating to patients are kept securely and computers are locked when left unattended to prevent breaches in data protection.
The service must take action to ensure that all Initial patient risk assessments are consistently completed for all patients.
The service must ensure that there are sufficient numbers of qualified, competent staff across all medical wards.
The service must take action to improve the access and flow throughout the medical wards, to reduce bed occupancy and prevent patients being cared for on wards that are outside their specialty.
Chief Inspector of Hospitals
The comprehensive inspection at Southport and Formby District General Hospital was conducted between 12 and 14 November 2014 and an unannounced inspection was carried out on 20 November 2014 between 10pm and 1am.
This inspection was conducted under the new model of inspection as part of the inspection of Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust.
Overall the hospital was rated as requiring improvement as the safe, effective and responsive domains were rated requires improvement and responsive, caring and well led domains were rated as good.
Our key findings were as follows:
Systems were in place for reporting and managing incidents. There was a risk-aware culture and a willingness to learn from mistakes but feedback was inconsistent. We found that some risks had been on the risk register for over two years without full resolution of the issues. We were told of a major infection control issue in critical care which had not been put on the risk register although it was being addressed. Concerns raised by staff about the safety of the ophthalmology clinic at Southport had been taken to the risk management team and the trust risk manager had been to the clinic, but no action appeared to have been taken, and the staff who raised the issue had been given no feedback about proposed action or why action was not required.
There were insufficient members of nursing staff to provide a safe service for patients being cared for in the North West Regional Spinal Injuries Centre (NWRSIC). Corridors were cluttered with equipment, which had an impact on the control of infection within the centre and there was no planned replacement programme for essential pieces of equipment. Medicines were well managed within the centre and quality of record keeping was good.
Patients received care in safe and clean environments. Staff were aware of policies but adherence in medicine needs improvement. We noted 19 separate occasions in A&E in the previous month where two members of staff had not always checked controlled drugs such as morphine sulphate during dispensing or as part of the daily stock check in the resuscitation area and in critical care medicines storage was not in accordance with current guidance on security. This had been identified by the trust and was on the risk register, but had not been promptly addressed.
Staff assessed and responded to patients’ risks. Patient records were completed appropriately although some end of life individualised care plans were found to be incomplete, meaning that some patients and their families may not get preferred care at the end of their life. The system for reviewing ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) forms was unclear to us and to the member of staff we spoke with, which may result in unnecessary confusion and distress if CPR is required.
Staff were aware of the safeguarding policy and got appropriate consent from patients. There were efficient and well managed handovers. There was an appropriate and up to date trust major incident plan.
Patients were supported with the right equipment; however there was no approved schedule for replacing older equipment used in the theatres and records across the hospital of service status were inconsistent.
Processes were in place to ensure resource and capacity risks were managed. However, the staffing levels in A&E, surgery and medicine were not always deemed sufficient to meet patient’s needs. The staffing levels were maintained through the use of bank and agency staff and this meant that the skills mix was not always sufficient to meet patients’ needs.
We found that the end of life/palliative care services at Southport Hospital were generally good, and were supported by a robust training programme and adherence to national guidelines
There was evidence of adherence to national guidance. The A&E department participated in national College of Emergency Medicine audits and there were clear action plans indicating what improvements need to be made as a result. In surgery the lack of an orthopaedic geriatrician meant that compliance with the national hip fracture audit had not been achieved and patients did not always receive the best possible care.
Evidence based guidelines were in place for the treatment of patients with spinal injuries. Care plans for patients with spinal injuries identified goals set by the patients and these were monitored by them in partnership with the staff. The discharge planning process was part of the goal setting undertaken with the patient and began as soon as the patient was admitted to the ward.
Staff on critical care told us that they had not achieved full implementation of the relevant guidance issued by professional and expert bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the national core standards for intensive care.
The adult critical care beds occupancy had been consistently above national average in the previous twelve months. This activity had reduced since June 2014. National Intensive Care audit data (ICNARC) showed that the service discharge out of hours to ward and delayed discharges over 4 hours was worse than the England average.
The majority of surgical patients had a positive outcome following their care and treatment; however, the number of patients that had elective urology and general surgery and were readmitted to hospital after discharge was higher (worse) than the England average. The average number of days patients stayed at the hospital was worse than the England average for elective and non-elective patients having general, trauma and orthopaedic surgery.
Staff treated patients with dignity, compassion and respect, even while working under pressure.
Although patients spoke positively about the care and treatment they had received and we observed many positive interactions data showed that the A&E department scored worse than the England average for similar departments which might indicate that patients would not recommend the department to their friends and family however the low response rate between April 2013 and July 2014 means the results were not fully reliable.
In the NWRSIC most patients were treated with compassion and respect, but low nurse staffing levels meant that sometimes staff were slow to respond to the needs of patients.
Performance was improving trust wide, but on its own, Southport Hospital struggled to meet the national Department of Health target for emergency services to admit or discharge 95% of patients within 4 hours of arrival at A&E between April 2014 and September 2014.
There were rehabilitation and sports facilities within the NWRSIC but sometimes patients were unable to access them due to shortages of staff.
Improvements were needed in the management of stroke. Timely access to computer passwords for newly appointed medical staff, including locum doctors, was required. The flow of medical patients throughout the hospital was disorganised and medical staff had no formal process by which to locate their patients. At the time of the inspection 15 surgical beds were occupied by medical patients and 4 surgical patients were being care for in medical beds. There was insufficient bed capacity in the wards and theatres, which meant that extra beds were occasionally placed on the surgical wards although we had been assured that this practice was no longer custom and practice. There were plans in place to improve theatre efficiency.
Despite this being an integrated trust there were few examples of integration between community and acute services. Although there was often good communication and co-operation, the community and acute services were usually managed and operated separately. This did not provide a seamless or holistic service for patients, particularly those with chronic health conditions that required frequent hospital admissions. We noted that patients who lived within the area covered by one clinical commissioning group had access to services of a specialist respiratory team. This service was not commissioned by the neighbouring clinical commissioning group. This meant that the respiratory service provided to patients was not equitable.
The mortuary and bereavement service was focused on making its environment and interaction with patients and relatives as minimally distressing as possible, and displayed excellent, innovative care.
National targets for referral to appointment times were exceeded in all areas. Clinics that consistently ran late were reviewed to identify blocks in patient flow.
The overall ethos centred around the quality of care patients received. Key risks and performance data were monitored. There was clearly defined and visible leadership, and staff felt free to challenge any staff members who were seen to be unsupportive or inappropriate in carrying out their duties. There was a disconnection between the staff providing hands-on care and the executive team in some areas. The system in place to communicate risks and changes in practice to nursing staff required improvement.
The emergency department faced challenges such as patient flow and local changing needs, such as an increased elderly population, and had initiatives in place to tackle these.
There was no clear strategy for the development of the NWSIC and there were insufficient senior nursing managers allocated to the NWRSIC to be able to provide effective leadership for this service.
We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:
However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.
Importantly, the trust must:
In addition the trust should:
Chief Inspector of Hospitals
During our inspection we visited five inpatient wards. We spent time with 15 patients and invited them to share with us their experience and views of care and treatment at the hospital. Some of their comments included:
“In general staff do their best but they are under pressure. They have got too much to do”, “Usually buzzers are answered quickly. It takes a bit longer in the middle of the night”, “Most of the staff are pleasant”, “I get my medication on time. Some (staff) watch you take it, others just leave it on the table”, “There are plenty of staff and they are good. They work hard” and “I have no complaints. Staff are kind. They struggle because there are not enough of them."
Patients we spoke with said they were treated with dignity and respect and that staff came promptly when they needed them. We observed staff draw curtains around patients’ beds when attending to them and they lowered their voices when they spoke to patients, to observe their privacy. However, on one ward the staff handover was held in a bay on the ward.
The health care records we looked at were not consistently completed in a timely manner on admission to the hospital or reviewed by medical staff on some of the wards we visited. Some patients did not have care plans or risk assessments. We found regular observations were made and recorded.
We found there were staff vacancies on all of the wards we visited. Staff were in the process of being recruited. We were told of the process for finding staff to cover for absences on the wards. However we found staff shortages on the day of our inspection on one ward because an absence had not been covered.
Patients told us staff were responsive and attentive to their requests, with nurse call bells responded to in a timely way. We heard one patient say “They [the staff] always close your curtains to try and keep things as private as they can.” A relative told us the staff had been “kind and considerate.”
Patients said they were provided with enough information about their medicines and treatment. One patient said “Medicines are given to me correctly.” Another patient told us “I get pain relief medicines when I need them.”
Overall, patients were aware of their plan of care and felt they had received adequate information to understand their condition and treatment. The health care records we looked at showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured patient safety and welfare. Some patients told us the discharge process had not been efficient. Senior managers were aware of this concern and explained that plans were in place to improve the discharge process.
The trust had reviewed and revised its quality and risk management systems. For example, the trust had invested in new storage facilities, including the provision of lockable doors to all medicine storage areas, new lockable fridges, new medicine trolleys and secure medicine disposal bins. These developments had assisted in ensuring medicines were safely stored to help prevent misuse and mishandling.
As part of our visit to the hospital we spent time with patients listening to their experience of care and treatment at the hospital. The majority of patients who talked with us had been admitted via the accident and emergency department. Patients said they were pleased with the treatment and care they received. One patient told us, “It was a very positive experience”. Patients told us that staff kept them informed about what was happening, including explanations about tests, investigations and treatment plans.
We heard from a patient say that, “The hospital is brilliant and the care excellent”. All the patients we talked with said the majority of staff were pleasant, caring and had a nice attitude. They said staff were respectful of their privacy and dignity. We heard that staff were responsive and attentive to requests, and nurse call bells were generally responded to in a timely way.
Patients were aware of how to make a complaint but were not sure about how to provide formal feedback on the quality of the service.
A number of patient relatives contacted us to report concerns that their family member had not experienced safe and effective care at this Trust. Patient interviews on the day of our visit told us they felt safe and they considered staff treated them with dignity and respect. When asked about their individual care plans patients were not aware that these were in place.
Before this inspection visit we were told by a number of patient relatives that staffing levels at the Trust was "poor" and for some concerns were raised about staff competence. We asked patients we interviewed about the care they received specifically around the numbers of staff available to provide this. We were told by all patients there were not enough staff available to meet their needs. They said staff were well trained and highly skilled, but they did not have the time to meet thier needs in full. Patient comments included "Staff were on the go all the time, I see them flying about and sometimes it’s hard to catch their attention". One patient said "Bells were left ringing for a long period of time and if you ask for anything it takes a long time before you get it".
We asked patients their views on how well staff knew them and their needs and we got mixed comments. One patient reported that staff knew her needs well but mostly patients responded by telling us staff did not have enough time to get to know them.
During out visit to the hospital we spent time on two wards. We spoke to 13 patients, two visitors (one a relative) and 10 members of staff across the wards. We also observed the care provided to a number of patients. We asked them specifically about their experiences of how the service involved them and kept them informed. We were also able to make general observations of people’s well being, as further evidence of inclusion. Patients we spoke with were positive about their experience of care and treatment they received at the hospital. They said they had been treated with courtesy and respect and that generally their dignity and privacy had been protected by the staff when receiving care, treatment and support.
We asked patients about how they are involved with decisions about their care. All said the staff had discussed the reasons for admission and that they were able to express their views openly and be involved with the care and treatment. We received the following comment:
“The nurses are very informative”
Patients we spoke with were positive about the quality of the food provided. They said there was plenty of choice and staff asked about their dietary preferences at the time of admission. Patients told us every effort is made to ensure meal times are a pleasant experience and the wards are quieter at these times. Their experience is captured in the following positive comments:
“Very good food”
“I enjoy the lunches”
Although patients spoke positively about standards of privacy and dignity and the food, we did find some inconsistencies in these areas.
What our icons mean
|Outstanding – the service is performing exceptionally well.|
|Good – the service is performing well and meeting our expectations.|
|The service must make improvements.|
Your information helps us decide when, where and what to inspect. Let's make care better together.
We make sure health and social care services provide people with safe, effective, compassionate, high-quality care and we encourage them to improve.
We attend a range of events throughout the year.
Find out about events where we will be speaking or exhibiting, and see presentations we've given at recent events.
When we inspect health and social care services, we give them ratings and publish reports about them – information you can use when you're choosing care.
151 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SZ
020 7448 9401
Out of hours: 07789 876 508
Information for care providers, including guidance about regulations, how to register with us, what incidents you must notify us about and what we look at when we carry out inspections.
We monitor, inspect and regulate services to make sure they meet fundamental standards of quality and safety and we publish what we find, including performance ratings to help people choose care.