Blackpool Victoria Hospital

Updated 29 August 2025

Blackpool Victoria Hospital provides a range of NHS hospital services. This assessment looked at the maternity service. We conducted this unannounced focused assessment on 18 and 19 March 2025 as a follow-up of the requires improvement rating and Section 31 letter of intent issued in 2022. We assessed 28 quality statements across the safe, effective, responsive and well-led key questions. We did not assess the caring key question during this assessment. The rating is based on the previous rating for this key question.

We rated the maternity service as requires improvement.  

At this assessment, we looked at the maternity service. The ratings from the maternity service have been combined with ratings of the other services at Blackpool Victoria Hospital. The overall location rating for the hospital remains inadequate.  

Please see our previous reports to get a full picture of all other services at Blackpool Victoria Hospital. 

Updated 12 December 2024

Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust provides health services across the Fylde coast, Lancashire and south Cumbria and supports a population of 1.6 million. The trust provides a range of acute services to the 352,000 population of the Fylde coast and the estimated 18 million visitors who visit each year.

Blackpool Victoria Hospital is a large acute hospital with 793 beds and employs approximately 7090 staff. Maternity services are provided at this site and the maternity unit delivers approximately 2,600 babies every year.

Blackpool Victoria Hospital’s maternity unit comprises a consultant led labour ward, a midwifery led birthing unit and a joint maternity antenatal and postnatal ward. Outpatient services are also provided in the maternity day unit, triage unit, antenatal clinic and in the community.

We refer to women in this report, but we recognise that some transgender men, non-binary people and people with variations in sex characteristics (VSC) or who are intersex may also use these services.

The rating from this maternity services assessment has been combined with ratings of other services from last inspections. The overall rating for the hospital remains inadequate. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all other services at Blackpool Victoria Hospital.

Our previous inspection of maternity services at Blackpool Victoria Hospital was on 21 and 22 June 2022. We rated the overall service as requires improvement.

Following the 2022 inspection, we wrote an urgent letter to the trust describing the serious concerns found during our inspection and requested assurances and an action plan of how it was going to improve maternity care. The trust took immediate action to address the concerns, and we received information to demonstrate this.

We conducted this unannounced focused assessment on 18 and 19 March 2025 as a follow-up of the requires improvement rating and Section 31 letter of intent. We assessed 28 quality statements across the safe, effective, responsive and well-led key questions. We did not assess the caring key question during this assessment.

We visited the maternity day unit, triage, antenatal ward and postnatal ward, delivery suite and obstetric theatres. We spoke with women who used the service and staff, including midwives, doctors, consultants and senior managers. In addition to this we also spoke with partners and stakeholders to hear their views of the service. We observed care and treatment, inspected women’s care records, and reviewed the trust’s audits and performance data.

As a result of re-rating the maternity service, the safe key question changed from inadequate to requires improvement. The key question responsive changed from requires improvement to good. The effective and well-led key questions remained as requires improvement. The caring key question has remained good and is based on the previous rating.

Following this 2025 assessment we sent an urgent letter to the trust describing our concerns around the number of consultant vacancies which was impacting on patient care, appropriate theatre staffing and delays to the induction of labour process.

The trust took immediate action to address the concerns and submitted an action plan. This provided sufficient assurance that appropriate action had and was being taken by the trust to reduce immediate safety risks to women and their babies. This meant we did not need to take urgent enforcement action.

Updated 22 July 2022

Updated 17 October 2019

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• Staff understood of how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do this is an appropriate way. All areas of the children’s and young people’s services were located in suitable premises and the service-controlled infection risk well. The service prescribed, administered and recorded medicines in line with guidance.
• Risk assessments for each patient were completed by a paediatric nurse and kept in the patient record. Staff kept detailed paper-based records of patients’ care and treatment. However, due to the size of the patient record this made it challenging for staff to retrieve information quickly.
• Nursing and medical staff had the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. However not all staff had completed their mandatory training, compliance rate amongst nursing and medical staff was low in some training.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.
• Children and young people were given a choice of food and drink and pain was managed well. Managers monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to improve them. Local results were undertaken to further improvements.
• Patients and parents were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate. Staff cared for children in a way that met their personal preferences and needs. Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers to minimise their distress and encouraged parents to be active partners in the care and treatment they delivered.
• The service was inclusive and took account of children, young people and their family’s individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. Patients could access the service when they needed it but those needing surgery did not always have their surgery on time.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve. All staff understood and were invested in the vision and values of the organisation. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt there was a no blame culture and a strong team ethos.
• There were effective governance processes in place. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities and had regular opportunities to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of the service. The service and staff were committed to improving services by learning from incidents, promoting training and innovation.

Updated 19 January 2022

Updated 17 October 2019

We rated it as good because:

• We rated safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led as good
• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. End of life care was not part of the trusts mandatory training for all staff.
• 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 collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• 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. Staff demonstrated care and compassion to patients.
• 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. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment. The service did not monitor, audit and evaluate rapid discharges from hospital led by the specialist palliative care service.
• 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 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. There was a non-executive director at board level for end of life care. Staff told us they did not always feel valued by senior managers.

Updated 17 October 2019

We rated it as requires improvement because:

• People struggled to access services when they needed them and receive the right care promptly. Patients were frequently and consistently not able to access services in a timely way for assessment or diagnosis, and experienced unacceptable waits for some treatments.
• Staff collated reliable data and teams used systems to monitor performance. However, leaders lacked the knowledge and capacity to lead the service and effectively drive improvements. The service was failing to manage services to meet key performance measures.
• There were governance processes in place. However, these were not always used to successfully manage risks and improve performance. Leaders didn’t consistently act on risks and identify and implement actions in a timely manner to reduce their impact.
• The service used paper-based patient records, and this presented a risk to the security and loss of patient information. We saw patient records, although complete and stored securely, were not always clear and easily available to all staff providing care.
• The number of cancelled appointments were not always kept to a minimum and had increased over time. The service did not have systems in place to sufficiently manage cancelled appointment rates.

However:

• The service had enough competent staff to keep patients safe from avoidable harm; and different professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff identified and quickly acted upon patients at risk of deterioration.
• Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. 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. Staff followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent and supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment.
• The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines; and staff assessed and monitored patients regularly to see if they were in pain. The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe; and the service-controlled infection risk well.
• The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action. We saw some evidence that leaders engaged with staff and local and partner organisations to plan and manage services for patients and encouraged innovation and participation in research.

Updated 19 January 2022

Updated 19 January 2022