All inspections: Glenfield Hospital - Care Quality Commission

Our rating of this surgical service went down. We rated it as requires improvement because:

Many wards did not have enough nursing staff to be able to spend time with their patients and met their individual needs. There was a high reliance on bank and agency nurses.
There were numerous examples of medical devices that were past their next service date and staff were not checking this themselves before use.
People could not always access the service when they needed it and sometimes had to wait too long for treatment.
Staff did not always appropriately monitor room temperatures and take appropriate action if medicines have been stored outside of their required parameters.
Staff did not always ensure that full, partly full and empty oxygen cylinders are segregated.
Several patients who spent a long time in hospital complained that there were no entertainment facilities in their rooms.

However:

The service had enough staff to keep patients safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback.
Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Our rating of services stayed the same. We rated it them as requires improvement because:

We rated safe, effective and well-led as requires improvement and caring and responsive as good.
In rating the hospital, we took into account the current ratings of the services not inspected this time.
Mandatory training was not up to date. Staff working with young people did not have the correct level of safeguarding training. Hand hygiene practices were not consistently followed by staff. Staff did not always minimise specific risks such as care of peripheral venous catheters (PVC) sites. Ligature risk assessments did not identify potential harms to vulnerable patients. Patients’ were not all reviewed by a consultant upon admission. There was not always enough medical or nursing staff to keep people safe. The service did not always use systems and processes effectively to safely record the levels of controlled drugs. Records were not always clear, up-to-date or stored securely.
Outcomes for patients did not always meet national standards. Managers did not hold regular clinical supervision meetings with staff. Key services were not available seven days a week. The service was not compliant with mandatory training in Mental Capacity Act or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people. The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously.
We were not assured the service identified all risks. The service had not made significant improvements in medical care following our previous inspection in 2017 and 2018.

However,

Staff understood how to protect adult patients from abuse. The service mostly controlled infection risk well. The premises and equipment kept people safe. Staff identified and quickly acted upon patients at risk of deterioration. Staff in post had the right qualifications, skills, training and experience. Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer and store medicines. The service managed patient safety incidents well.
The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance. Staff gave patients enough food and drink. Staff assessed and monitored patients regularly to see if they were in pain. Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment. Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment.
Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers to minimise their distress. Staff supported and involved patients, families and carers.
Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were not all in line with national standards.
Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. Most staff we spoke to felt respected, supported and valued. The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve. Leaders operated effective governance processes. The service collected reliable data and analysed it. The information systems were integrated and secure. Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. Systems were in place to identify and escalate risks and issues. Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services.

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust is one of the biggest acute trusts in England. Formed in April 2000, it is a teaching trust which provides specialist and acute services to a population of around 1,000,000 patients patients throughout Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. The Trust’s nationally and internationally-renowned specialist treatment and services in cardio-respiratory diseases, cancer and renal disorders reach a further two to three million patients nationally.

The trust operates acute hospital services from three main hospital sites:

Leicester Royal Infirmary
Leicester General Hospital
Glenfield Hospital

Glenfield Hospital is situated on the outskirts of Leicester, approximately three miles from Leicester City Centre. It has approximately 440 beds and offers a range of inpatient and outpatient services including nationally recognised medical care for heart disease, lung cancer and breast care. Glenfield Hospital provides medical care, surgery, critical care, end of life care and outpatients and diagnostic services for children, young people and adults.

We served a warning notice under Section 29A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in December 2017. The warning notice was served as we found evidence to suggest the quality of health care in relation to management of insulin for diabetic patients’ required significant improvement. We carried out an unannounced focused inspection on 29 May 2018 to follow up actions taken following the issue of the warning notice and to see if significant improvements had been made.

We inspected the safe domain in the core service of Medicine at this location. We did not inspect any other core services or wards at this hospital.This was a focused inspection. Information for the location as a whole can be found in our previous report published in March 2018. This can be accessed at http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAH1561.pdf.

Our key findings were as follows:

There had been improvements in the care of patients with diabetes since our last inspection, however, further improvement was required in the monitoring and embedding of the actions taken. Staff did not always ensure trust policy was followed in the administration of insulin.Patients with recorded high blood glucose levels did not always receive their prescribed insulin, the reasons for this were not always clearly documented.
Staff did not always follow trust policy in regards to control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH). We found chlorine based solutions and tablets in unlocked rooms.
Safety Thermometer results were not displayed consistently by all wards and departments.
We saw that ‘I am clean’ were not always attached to equipment that was clean and ready for use.
We found nurse pull cords and light pull cords in showers and toilets that could pose a ligature risk.
We found scalpels and razors were not stored securely and could be accessed easily by patients or a member of the public.
On two occasions we observed that confidential patient records were not stored securely

However:

Incidents were reported and managed effectively and learning was identified and shared.
Wards and departments were visibly clean, there was good use of personal protective equipment and good hand hygiene practice.
Risk assessments had been completed for patients with a known or suspected infectious disease.
There was sufficient equipment to deliver safe care. Equipment was services regularly and well maintained.
Medicines were stored safely and staff understood their responsibilities around medicines management.
Nursing assessments and care plans were fully completed, up to date and regularly reviewed.
Systems and processes were in place to assess and respond to patient risk including escalation of the deteriorating patient and management of patients with sepsis.
There were sufficient nursing and medical staff to deliver safe care and on call systems in place when advice or support was required.

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

Importantly, the trust must:

Ensure that all staff follow the prescription and trust guidance when monitoring patients blood glucose levels and administering as required insulin.
Ensure staff are up to date with mandatory training.

In addition the trust should:

Ensure scalpels and razors are stored securely so that they can not be accessed by patients or the public.
Ensure confidential patient records were are stored securely

Professor Ted Baker

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Our rating of services stayed the same. We rated them as requires improvement because:

A summary of this hospital appears in the overall summary above.

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust is a teaching trust that was formed in April 2000 through the merger of Leicester General Hospital, Glenfield Hospital and Leicester Royal Infirmary.

The trust provides care to the people of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland as well as the surrounding

counties. Some of its specialised services provide care and treatment to people from all over the UK.

Glenfield Hospital has 427 inpatient beds and 23 day case beds and provides a range of services for patients, including nationally recognised medical care for heart disease, lung cancer and breast care.

This inspection was a responsive inspection which was designed to look at the improvements the trust had made since the last inspection in January 2014. We inspected Glenfield Hospital between 20- 23 June 2016. We also carried out unannounced inspections to Leicester Royal Infirmary, the Glenfield Hospital and Leicester General Hospital on 27 June, 1 July and 7 July 2016.

Overall we found Glenfield Hospital was performing at a level which led to the judgement of requires improvement. We inspected six core services at this hospital, four were rated as good and two were rated as requiring improvement.

Our key findings were as follows:

Staffing levels in most areas, were sufficient to deliver safe care
Essential information and guidance was available for all temporary staff including bank, locum and agency.
Recruitment and retention was an issue and the trust was currently revising and reviewing its recruitment processes. There had in the past been a recruitment drive for international nurses for critical care, which was reported as being successful.
The trust had a slightly lower percentage of consultants when compared to the England average. The percentage of junior grade staff was slightly higher than the England average.
Consultant cover, after 10pm, in all areas was through on-call arrangements only. Out of hours care was provided by a ‘hospital at night’ team which comprised of junior doctors, nurses and clinical support workers, with all patient-related tasks managed by a senior nurse who triaged the tasks and assigned each to a member of the team.
When assigned to critical care, consultants had no other clinical responsibilities within the hospital.
Weekend and out-of-hours on-call advice for staff was provided by a consultant employed by the local hospice. Staff could use this facility to access specialist advice and support if a patient was identified as at the end of life.
The trainees we spoke with said there was a good balance between work and teaching.

Glenfield Hospital (GH) participated in ‘Patient-Led Assessments of the Care Environment’ (PLACE). PLACE is a self-assessment of non-clinical services which contribute to healthcare delivered in both the National Health Service (NHS) and independent/ private healthcare sector in England. The assessment of cleanliness for this hospital demonstrated a compliance level of 97%, which was almost equal to the England average of 98%.
Trust wide there had been 67 cases of clostridium difficile (c. difficile) infections between March 2015 and April 2016 with one case occurring at this hospital in the surgical areas. C. difficile is an infective bacterium that causes diarrhoea, and can make patients very ill.
Meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a bacterium responsible for several difficult-to-treat infections. Between April 2015 and April 2016, there were 15 cases of MRSA with none in the surgical areas at GH.
All ward areas at GH were screened wards. This meant all patients were tested for MRSA prior to admission. Any patient found to be a carrier of MRSA would be treated before admission. This ensured that all patients requiring surgery at GH were protected from unnecessary harm. Any outlying patients that had not been screened were isolated and treated for MRSA until swabs proved negative. We saw evidence of negative MRSA screen results in all 12 patient records we reviewed.
Staff were observed washing their hands appropriately, using cleansing hand gels and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) such as aprons, gloves and masks. Staff were adhering to the ‘bare below the elbows’ policy when in clinical areas..

Without exception, all staff we spoke with were familiar with the process for reporting incidents, near misses and accidents using the trust’s electronic reporting system.
The trust reported 44 serious incidents between May 2015 and April 2016. Serious incidents are events in health care where the potential for learning is so great, or the consequences to patients, families and carers, staff or organisations are so significant, that they warrant using additional resources to mount a comprehensive response. Medical care had the highest number of serious incidents reported at 13 (30%) with one serious incident reported at this hospital.
Staff reported getting feedback from incidents through email, staff meetings, board ‘huddles’ and, during handovers. All staff we spoke with were able to tell us of incidents they had reported and of more serious incidents that had occurred on other hospital sites.
The Glenfield hospital took part in the 2015 National Diabetes Inpatient Audit (NaDIA). Results showed the hospital had eight scores better than, and nine scores worse than, the England average. The indicator ‘seen by the Multidisciplinary diabetic foot team (MDFT) within 24 hours’ was significantly worse than the England average at 28.6% compared to 58% nationally. Results also demonstrated an increase in prescription errors between the 2013 (11.1%) and 2015 (32.8%) audits.
There was an effective multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to planning and delivering patient’s care and treatment. We saw involvement from nurses, medical staff, allied health professionals (AHP) and specialist nurses. Most staff we spoke with told us that there were good lines of communication and working relationships between the different disciplines.
Medical records demonstrated an MDT approach to the delivery of patient care. Throughout the care records we reviewed we saw input from for example; physiotherapists, consultants, dieticians, nurses, speech and language therapy (SALT) and specialist nurses.
MDT meetings took place weekly as a minimum across all medical care wards and units.
Patients receiving end of life care received support from an end of life care multidisciplinary team (MDT). This included the specialist palliative care team consultants, nursing staff, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, oncologists and other relevant professionals. The chaplain and the bereavement team were also part of the MDT for end of life care patients.
Quarterly monitoring of dementia training figures were undertaken as part of the National Dementia CQUIN. Dementia awareness training had been developed using a multi-agency approach and focussed on two categories; dementia category A (basic level, required by all employees) and dementia category B (enhanced level, required by staff working clinically with adult patients). Between January 2016 and March 2016 category A training had exceeded the trust target of 90% with 93% of staff having completed this training. For the same reporting period 89% of staff had completed category B training which was slightly lower than the trust target of 90%.
Patients were treated with kindness, dignity, respect and compassion while they received care and treatment. All the staff we spoke with showed an awareness of the importance of treating patients and their families in a sensitive manner.
Patients were involved as partners in their care and were supported to understand their care needs.
The trust wide data for June 2016 showed that the majority of specialties met or exceeded the 90% standard of 90% of patients meeting their RTT.
Senior staff told us they made decisions about whether to cancel operations the day before the operation wherever possible.
Information from NHS England showed the total number of elective operations in University Hospitals Leicester, (UHL) cancelled on the day between January and June 2016, was 854. All but 92 of these were rescheduled within 28 days.
Wards and departments included single-gender accommodation, which promoted privacy and dignity. The trust performance reports from April 2016 showed there were no reported times when male and female patients had been treated in a mixed area at this hospital between March 2015 and April 2016.
The children’s hospital 18 week referral to treatment performance data (June 2015 to May 2016) for admitted and non-admitted performance against each speciality, showed that during the 12 month period the monthly range for admitted performance was between 72.7% (December 2015) and 88.6% (July 2015). This was worse than the England average of 95%.
Podcasts (a digital audio file made available on the internet) on recognition of the sick child had been produced by a senior member of the medical staff for GPs to use in the community. These were accessible from the university hospitals website and included identifying the sick child, fits, faints and funny turns.
Most staff we spoke with were able to articulate the trust’s vision and the values.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust had a detailed five year integrated business plan which covered 2014 to 2019. A two-year ‘operational plan’ was in place within emergency and specialist medicine with detailed plans of how the service intended to meet the increasing demands of the local healthcare economy.
There was a detailed business plan for the development and reconfiguration of critical care services across the trust. These included the expansion of critical care beds on the Glenfield site, with the addition of a further 11 beds, to accommodate the increased need for capacity as other services also reconfigured and relocated.
A separate ‘Clinical Vision and Strategy for Children’s services 2016’ was in place, which identified four strategic goals to provide an age-appropriate service for children and young people with a focus on outstanding, compassionate clinical care.
Locally, staff reported good nursing leadership from their line managers and matrons of the service. Nursing staff felt ward sisters, matrons and heads of nursing were visible and provided a good level of support.
Ward leaders and matrons spoke of ward staff with pride. There was a clear mutual respect amongst staff, ward leaders and matrons.
Staff felt respected and valued, happy to work at the trust and felt part of their immediate team. We observed staff working as a team on all of the areas we visited and saw high levels of patient engagement.
On all of the areas we visited staff spoke of patients being the focus of their work. We saw staff consistently delivering care and demonstrating behaviours in line with the trust vision and values.
The NHS Staff Survey 2015 saw the percentage of staff recommending the trust as a place to work or receive treatment as higher than the 2014 survey at 3.6%. This was slightly lower than the national average of 3.7%.
In five out of eight questions relating to job satisfaction, the trust scored better than the national average for other NHS trusts 91% of staff felt that their role makes a difference to patients compared to 90% as a national average.
There was an understanding amongst staff of the implications of duty of candour and we were given examples of where shortfalls in patient experience or care had been shared with relatives in accordance with duty of candour principles.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

An initiative to improve the timely administration of medicines for Parkinson’s disease (PD) had been put in place across the trust and we saw evidence of this in use at the Glenfield hospital. Ward staff told us they were aware of the PD medication stock held on the clinical decision unit (CDU) and this reduced requests for these medicines out of hours and ensured patients received their medicines when needed.
Patients on the coronary care unit could be monitored remotely using mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT). This meant patients could mobilise whilst undergoing continuous cardiac monitoring.
A range of medicines to manage Parkinson’s disease was available on the Clinical Decisions Unit (CDU) at the Glenfield Hospital. These medicines are time sensitive and delays in administering them may cause significant patient discomfort. These medicines were available to be ‘borrowed’ by other wards within the hospital and the nurses we spoke with were aware of this facility. The formulations of these medicines may sometimes cause confusion and pharmacy had produced a flowchart to ensure staff selected the correct formulation.
A ‘pain aid tool’ was available for patients who could not talk and/or may have a cognitive disorder. This pain tool took into account breathing, vocalisation, facial expressions, body language and physical changes to help determine level of patient comfort.
A comprehensive two-year competency based training programme was in place on the coronary care unit (CCU). Competencies included; intra-aortic balloon pump (an intra-aortic balloon pump is a mechanical device that helps the heart pump blood), continuous positive airway pressure, a treatment that uses mild air pressure to keep the airways open, high flow oxygen and advanced life support
The hospital provided patient focused services where patients could attend and be treated without the need for an overnight stay in hospital.
The respiratory early discharge scheme (REDs) was in place to speed up hospital discharge for respiratory patients, especially those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

The trust recognised that families, friends and neighbours had an important role in meeting the care needs of many patients, both before admission to hospital and following discharge. This also included children and young people with caring responsibilities. As a result, the ‘UHL Carers Charter’ was developed in 2015.
The development of ‘my lung surgery diary’ by the thoracic team, with the help of patients during the patient experience day 2015
The pain management service won the national Grünenthal award for pain relief in children in 2016. The Grünenthal awards recognised excellence in the field of pain management and those who were striving to improve patient care through programmes, which could include the commissioning of a successful pain management programme.

Importantly, the trust must:

Medicine

The trust must take action to ensure nursing staff adhere to trust guidelines for the completion and escalation of early warning scores (EWS).
The trust must take action to ensure nursing staff adhere to the trust’s guidelines for screening for sepsis in the ward areas.

Surgery

The provider must ensure that appropriate systems and training are in place to ensure that Consent forms are completed appropriately for patients who lacked capacity and were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Critical Care

The trust must ensure 50% of nursing staff within critical care have completed the post registration critical care module. This is a minimum requirement as stated within the Core Standards for Intensive Care Units.

Services for children and young people

The hospital must improve the numbers of staff on each shift trained in Advanced Paediatric Life Support and European Paediatric Life Support Royal College of Nursing (RCN) 2013 staffing guidance. Training levels for Paediatric Life Support were low so there was insufficient staff who were suitably trained.

End of Life

The trust must ensure 'do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) forms are completed appropriately in accordance with national guidance, best practice and in line with trust policy.
The trust must ensure there are sufficient numbers of suitable syringe drivers with accepted safety features available to ensure patients would receive safe care and treatment.

Outpatients and diagnostic imaging

The trust must ensure FP10 are kept securely and that there is an audit trail of there use.
The trust must ensure patients privacy is maintained when tests are being carried out.

In addition the trust should:

The trust should ensure fire prevention and safety is given sufficient priority at all times.
The trust should ensure medical staffing on ward 28 is reviewed to maintain appropriate levels of support for junior medical staff.
The trust should ensure a sufficient number of staff trained as ‘scrub assistants’ are available on the angio-catheter suite.
The trust should ensure the referral to treatment times (RTT) for the cancer standard and access to diagnostic tests within six weeks of referral are reviewed with actions in place to improve services.
The trust should ensure fluid balance charts used to record a patient’s fluid intake and output are adequately completed in order to monitor a patient’s fluid balance to prevent dehydration or over hydration.
The trust should consider publicly displaying safety thermometer data in order that patients and the public could see how the ward was performing in relation to patient safety.
The trust should consider seven-day working for medical staff across the medical specialties
The trust should ensure that the actions initiated after the recent never event include re-enforcing the importance of the timely reporting of all incidents.
The trust should consider how it is going to meet the existing areas of non-compliance with the D16 National Service Specification for Adult Intensive care. More specifically, the shortfall in allied health professional support and NICE guidance.
The trust should consider how it is going to reduce the number of cancelled elective surgery cases.
The trust should locate, monitor and track the syringe drivers across the trust.
The trust should review the leadership arrangements and focus on end of life care to ensure it is given sufficient priority at CMG and board level.
The trust should ensure that cleaning arrangements are adequate, formalised and monitored.
The trust should minimise in-clinic wait time for patients and check their pain levels
The trust should train outpatient booking staff in good booking and patient management practices.
The trust should plan services to meet local need. The trust should ensure that it has access to all necessary information about the service in order to mitigate risks to the quality and safety of treatment
The trust should implement transparent quality, safety and performance arrangements, for example, consistent use of quality dashboards.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Glenfield Hospital is part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, a teaching trust that was formed in April 2000 through the merger of Glenfield with Leicester General Hospital and Leicester Royal Infirmary. It also incorporates St Mary’s Birth Centre. The trust provides care to the people of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland as well as the surrounding counties.

Glenfield Hospital has 417 beds and provides a range of services (elective and non-elective), which include medical care services for lung cancer, respiratory and breast care. It is also the base for the trust’s heart centre, providing treatment for conditions including heart disease. We spoke to 43 patients and their relatives while visiting the wards and departments in the hospital. We also held a listening event on Monday 13 January where we spoke with around 80 people who came to provide their views on this and the other hospitals managed by this trust.

This hospital does not have an accident and emergency (A&E) department but has a clinical decisions unit which we cover in the A&E section of this report. The hospital also has a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, which we cover in the 'services for children and young people' section of this report.

Prior to and during our inspection we heard from patients, relatives, senior managers, and all staff about some key issues which impacted on the service provided at this hospital. Across the trust there were three issues which the trust management team had alerted us to which impacted at all locations these included staff shortages, pressures on all areas from the A&E department and the impact of the contracted out services. These three issues are discussed in detail in the trust overview report. The issues of most concern in this location include:

Inappropriate patient transfers

While the main capacity issues for the trust lay at the largest site, Leicester Royal Infirmary, these impact at the Glenfield Hospital site as patients are diverted to the clinical decisions unit when some patients are diverted from A&E, impacting on the effectiveness of this service. This also means that inappropriate patients are sent to the unit and later transferred across the trust to the appropriate ward. Patients waiting for beds within main wards are cared for by a different medical team each day and this could lead to inconsistencies in treatment. Within the surgical unit we found that patients were regularly being transferred between wards to facilitate bed management issues.

Infection prevention and control

We saw a number of issues where infection control procedures required review. These included the cleaning of patient equipment, poor hand washing procedures and dirty equipment. These could have an impact on control of infection and increase cross contamination.

Outpatients services

The outpatients services are partly driven by the central booking service located on this site. While we heard from a number of sources that long waiting times in outpatients was a result of overbooking, we found that the central booking service had strict criteria to operate under. Where appointments for patients could not be found within these criteria, the referral would be sent back to the department to be dealt with.

Patients were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the trust had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Provision of suitable medicine storage was in place and security had improved. There were regular audits of compliance and staff reported and escalated issues promptly.

Patients were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. One patient told us: 'Generally the wards here are good, and ward 26 and 27 are very good. Here I have total confidence in the staff. Staff are fabulous, very, very kind, they understand what you need. '

Staff received timely appraisals, were informed of developments and consulted on any proposed improvements. There were a range of meetings and mechanisms whereby staff received information about developments, met members of the trust board and shared their views.

Patients felt confident to make a comment or a complaint about the care and treatment they received. There was a robust procedure followed when formal complaints were received. Access and availability of information about the role of the patient information and liaison service (PILS) and the complaints procedure could be improved.

During our visit on 13 January 2011, we talked to patients at the Glenfield Hospital. On the whole the patients we spoke to were very positive about their experiences of care and treatment at the hospital. Patients reported that staff were respectful and focused on meeting their personal care needs. Patients felt they were treated with dignity and respect. They also stated that they were given information about procedures including reasons for needing to reschedule or cancel them. Patients told us that the risks and benefits of different care and treatment options had been explained to them.

We found that the trust asks patients for their views and experiences of care on a regular basis. We reviewed the content of these surveys as part of this planned review.

Patients told us that they thought the general fabric of the hospital was good; they also said that cleanliness of the ward environment was good.

Patents reported that the staff explained and provided sufficient information on the medication that they were required to take whilst in hospital.

Overall, the majority of these comments reflected well on the hospital; patients we spoke to confirmed that they were looked after well and generally had their needs met. However, some patients thought that the nurses always appeared to be very busy and on two of the wards some questioned whether there should be more staff.

Glenfield Hospital

All Inspections

28 and 29 June 2022

During a routine inspection

10 Sep to 06 Nov 2019

During a routine inspection

29 May 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

26 November 2017 to 12 January 2018

During a routine inspection

20 – 23 June 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Professor Sir Mike Richards

13 January 2014

During an inspection

13-16 January 2014

During a routine inspection

Inappropriate patient transfers

Infection prevention and control

Outpatients services

22 November 2012

During a routine inspection

16 December 2010 and 13 January 2011

During a routine inspection