Huddersfield Royal Infirmary

Ratings - Outpatients

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Good

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

We assessed the outpatients service as part of a comprehensive trust and well led assessment from 12 January to 5 February 2026. This was in response to concerns raised to us around safe care and treatment.

We spoke to 36 clinical and non-clinical staff of various grades.

The service had addressed some of the concerns from our last inspection in March 2016. For example, leads had mitigations in place to ensure clinics were not overbooked. They had added extra capacity to address long waits or delays and improve patient satisfaction.

There were no previous breaches.

At this assessment we found the following examples of good practice;

• All OPD staff we spoke to enjoyed working for the hospital and felt respected, appreciated and well supported by managers and teams to raise any suggestions or concerns.
• Did not attend (DNA) rates were reported with a health equity lens; rates were compared for patients with a learning disability, by ethnicity and those from the most deprived areas. Staff used the trust’s inequalities flag on their electronic patient records (EPR) system within some services. This aimed to ensure equity across all patient groups.
• We heard examples of how OPD staff and consultants met outpatient’s individual needs including offering emotional support and reducing anxiety.
• We heard about some encouraging service initiatives and development work to better meet the needs of people with a learning disability (LD).
• The service had improved continuity of care and outcomes for outpatients with dementia. Research projects were underway in orthopaedics, surgery and physiotherapy.

However, we found areas for improvement;

• The division had many environmental and equipment issues across clinics. Some services such as surgical outpatients had unhappy staff due to their environment, working conditions and lack of facilities. Outpatients’ privacy and confidentiality could not be protected in some clinic waiting areas. Security response times were delayed accessing the Acre Mills building from the main hospital site. This meant some staff and patients felt unsafe.
• Clinical staff did not meet the trust’s target compliance of 95% for their mandatory Oliver McGowan training on learning disability and autism tier 2. Latest compliance for the full day face to face seminar was 42.7%. However, the directorate was on target to achieve Tier 2 compliance over the next 2 years aligned to the organisational trajectory.
• We could not always ensure outpatients were safety overseen by clinical staff. We were unsure how certain clinics mitigated potential risks around safeguarding, fire safety, and medical emergencies.
• The absence of staggered reception cover left the department unsupported. This placed increased pressure on clinical staff during periods of reduced cover.
• Some nursing staff told us their access to practical statutory training, continuous professional development (CPD) and upskilling was limited by having no spare staff to cover their shifts.
• 50% of the FP10 forms we reviewed from July to December 2024 were missing or had incomplete documentation. Three pads were simultaneously in use. This meant we could not ensure staff recorded, monitored or audited these prescriptions consistently.
• We found a lack of equity in access for some cross-site services such as phlebotomy, women’s health and pharmacy provision.
• Some pre-planned, elective and drop-in clinics could not increase capacity to meet extra demand. The service’s clinics did not always run on time and could keep patients waiting. We observed some consultant clinics running late and behind schedule.

Trust and service leads took prompt actions to address all our identified concerns and issues feedback onsite.

After our completed assessment we issued the trust the following breach of regulation;

The trust must ensure all outpatient environments, equipment and staff facilities are appropriate for the delivery of safe care.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

People's experience of this service

We spoke to 12 outpatients and their loved ones. Most were very positive and complimentary about the service. Patients commended individual staff members for delivering compassionate care. Leads told us feedback gained was valuable.

Results from a summary of the department’s survey feedback for the last 12 months were fairly high. Multiple months achieved over 85% satisfaction.