Blackpool Victoria Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating changed to good.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff based patient care around individual needs and preferences. Staff supported patients living with dementia and learning disabilities by using, ‘This is me’ documents and ‘My Health Passport’ for autistic patients which contained information about the patients’ interests, how they communicated pain and what caused them distress.

Patients presenting with mental health needs were appropriately signposted by nursing staff to the liaison team for further assessment. The service also worked in partnership with the primary intermediate mental health team to provide effective care in the community, with a view to reduce admissions into secondary mental health services.

All patient survey results relating to Medicine services within the trust were held within the ‘Experience’ System Platform. December 2025 survey feedback available for the Friends and Family Test illustrated that there were 1960 total responses with an overall satisfaction rate of 96%.

The department had access to interpreters, including for British Sign Language when needed. Staff also had access to communication aids to help patients.

We saw positive interactions between staff and patients with complex needs to ensure they remained settled in the service. Staff made sure patients living with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia, received the necessary care to meet all their needs.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities and worked with community professionals to support discharges into the community. However, there were delayed discharges due to major constraints within the wider health and social care system.

Staff explained that some of the patients were experiencing delays in their discharge processes due to lack of suitable care placement and/or complex social needs. We noted that all wards visited were at full capacity which affected the service’s ability to admit other patients. This impacted the flow of patients through the hospital and from departments such as the emergency department.

In November there were 322 individual patients classed as outliers utilising beds in other divisions. A medical outlier is a patient who is admitted to a hospital ward that is not their speciality of need at the time. These patients, who are often not medically fit for discharge, could face delays in medical reviews as medical teams looking after them were not always in the right place at the right time.

The trust reported that outlier patients were managed through daily reviews by two medical outlier teams with efforts to cohort patients on a dedicated ward where possible. The outlier teams attended a huddle to escalate any patients that required a bed in a medical enhanced care unit specialty and to gain support from the operational team with expediting imaging or the transfer of care hub input for example.

Data provided by the Trust on delayed patient discharges between October and December 2025 showed that a total of 476 patients were awaiting for the transfer of care hub process, including awaiting confirmation of their immediate care needs and pathway. Of these, 213 patients were waiting for residential or nursing home placements, while 102 patients were awaiting the necessary referrals from the Transfer of Care Hub.

In October 2025 the trust improved oversight of ward moves to ensure there is a clear visibility of ward moves for each patient. This helped to support decision making regarding patient moves.

Patients received care and treatment from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. Even in the face of delays (particularly around discharges), patients spoke positively about their experiences due to the patience of staff.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment. Information was appropriately shared with community teams including GPs and specialist teams. Staff could access wider information about patient health records from the regional health service.

Services were delivered and co-ordinated with appropriate consideration of patients’ needs and preferences, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at higher risk of a poorer experience of care. The wards were easily accessible by people using wheelchairs or those with reduced mobility.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff provided patients, their families, and carers with information that was accessible, safe, secure, and supported their rights and choices. Patients were provided with relevant information about their condition, follow up care and treatment as required.

People’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. This included making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, interpreting and translating for people who did not speak English as a first language and for Deaf people who used British Sign Language. People who had difficulty with reading, writing, or using digital services were supported with accessible information.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients and their families knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways.

The service had a complaints policy, which provided guidance to staff on the processes they should follow in the event of a patient complaint. Staff understood the complaint policy and knew how to escalate concerns. Patient information leaflets included details about the complaints process and leaflets were available on the ward or the trust website for patients to access.

Managers investigated complaints and identified themes. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. We reviewed complaint response letters which often highlighted lessons learned. For example, in one case, the trust assured relatives that they would reiterate the importance of detailed documentation with staff following a complaint. The data we reviewed in December 2025 illustrated that the trust was performing at 93% complaint completion in line with trust targets.

The trust carried out patient satisfaction surveys to obtain feedback about its services. Patient feedback was mostly positive. December 2025 survey feedback available for the Friends and Family test illustrated an overall satisfaction rate of 96.22%.

The trust had a group of Volunteers, called ‘The Listeners’ as previously reported above, who either have lived experience themselves or who have cared for a loved one within the hospital.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients; for example, people with mobility issues were provided with walking aids and shower chairs

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the wards quickly in an emergency.

There was 24/7 stroke specialist cover which for out of hours was covered by the regional network of consultants who worked on a rota. There was medical registrar on-call cover who dealt with the stroke medical emergencies in consultation with the consultant.

Additionally, there was an on‑site stroke specialist nurse based at Blackpool Victoria Hospital who provided 24/7 cover and responded directly from the Emergency Department. Adult speech and language therapy acute and community services were primarily based at Blackpool Victoria Hospital.

The trust reported that poor flow throughout the hospital was directly impacted by increased numbers of patients without clinical right to reside. These were patients that were medically optimised for discharge but were waiting for health or social care support outside of the hospital setting.

The trust identified from January 2025 that the triage time had doubled to get people home and were working closely with local authority partners to streamline the triage process and care allocation with the transfer of care hub. The working group reported monthly on the performance on the no criteria to reside (NCTR) patients, working to a 10% NCTR patients target and working on reducing the length of time a patient was with the transfer of care hub (TOCH) to 5 days.

July 2025 data illustrated a reduction in inappropriate TOCH referrals from 24% in January 2025 to 17%. TOCH clinical triage average referral time was 2 days and patients with an allocated community social worker experienced a reduction in delays from 8.2 days to 2.6 days.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff completed Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodiversity training and mental health training. Staff followed processes that enabled them to deliver care and treatment in a way that did not disadvantage patients with protected characteristics.

People told us their needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff. They told us they were treated in a non-discriminatory way.

Staff told us they treated people equally and without discrimination. They were able to give examples of how they respected the individual wishes of people with protected characteristics and people with communication or language difficulties or cognitive impairments.

There was at least 1 Learning Disability champion in each area throughout the trust. Learning Disability champions meet monthly and people with lived experience had attended to share their experiences of care at the trust.

For patients living with dementia, the service used the nationally recognised “This is me” document. ‘This is me' helps health and social care professionals better understand a patient’s needs, preferences and values beyond their dementia diagnosis. This supported staff to deliver care that is tailored to the person's needs. Used effectively, it can help to reduce distress for people with dementia and their carers. It can also help to overcome problems with communication and prevent more serious conditions such as malnutrition and dehydration.

The trust demonstrated several examples of workstreams that had been carried out to identify and address health inequalities. These included initiatives such as additional screening for blood‑borne viruses and a project called “All Views Matter”, which was developed in response to the lack of opportunity for non‑English‑speaking patients to provide feedback on their care. As a result of this project, the trust gained improved representation from the diverse communities it served.

The ‘All Views Matter’ team researched the six most commonly spoken languages in Lancashire: Urdu, Bengali, Kurdish (Sorani), Romanian, Polish, and Arabic. Friends and Family Test forms were then produced in all six languages on yellow A4 paper to ensure that patients with visual impairments were not excluded from using them. A poster was also developed to encourage these patients to request a form and provide feedback.

Staff aimed to remove any barriers to access for patients. There was an inclusive culture which prevented discrimination and inequalities, supported by training and guidance. Staff listened to people who had concerns or complaints and sought ways to improve the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported by planning for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so.

Care plans reviewed accurately reflected patients advanced care planning decisions.

We saw comments on the wards notice boards which included a wealth of positive feedback from patient relatives regarding the exceptional end of life care provided by staff. The trust also offered the Swan Bereavement Support to patients’ families.

Staff had access to the trust wide resuscitation policy and demonstrated a clear understanding of the trust do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) policy.

Any patients being discharged without onward support for care needs had a discharge planning document completed as part of the admission documentation. This was completed by the nurse in charge.