Blackpool Victoria Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 22 patient care records and found that most people’s needs were assessed and reviewed. We did find gaps in patient paper observation records.

Patients consistently described staff as attentive and caring. However, we received mixed feedback from patients that some were not kept up to date about their care and treatment, did not understand treatment plans and were not always informed of the next steps.

Care plans reflected the needs identified through assessment and were person-centred, holistic and regularly updated. Care plans also evidenced effective multidisciplinary working and collaboration with specialist teams to ensure people’s assessed needs were met.

Staff used recognised assessment tools to identify and monitor pain, including for patients who were unable to communicate verbally, helping to ensure their needs were understood and responded to appropriately.

Staff received training to support them in assessing and responding to the diverse needs of people using the service. Staff completed training in mental health, learning disabilities and dementia awareness. Trust-wide compliance rates were high, with Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodiversity training at 98%, Dementia training at 96%, and Conflict Resolution training at 95%, helping to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills to provide appropriate, person-centred care.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, in some areas food and drink was not always available to patients.

Patients’ nutritional and hydration needs were generally met, with most patients reporting they were offered sufficient food and drink and records supporting this. Staff did report that it was sometimes difficult accessing food and drink for patients in the Fit to Sit area due to the limited options available.

Clinical policies reviewed were aligned with current guidelines, and patients had access to information and educational materials reflecting evidence-based practice. The service demonstrated a commitment to quality improvement, particularly in reducing hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, with sustained improvements supported by specialist input, staff education, and regular safety initiatives. Clinical governance processes included routine consistency-of-care audits, with overall compliance remaining high at 96%, alongside established systems to provide senior clinical oversight and review of higher-risk patient groups. Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) assessment evaluates a patient's risk of developing dangerous blood clots. VTE assessment and prophylaxis were undertaken across the trust rather than just a specific department.

The service benefited from a multidisciplinary workforce with access to a broad range of healthcare professionals, enabling patients’ diverse needs to be met. Staff were appropriately qualified, experienced, and supported through induction, specialist training, supervision, team meetings, and professional development opportunities. A senior leadership role within the department provided additional clinical and pastoral support to staff and strengthened audit and quality assurance processes.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff demonstrated effective multidisciplinary working across both urgent and emergency care and the trust. Regular multidisciplinary meetings were attended by senior decision-makers and a wide range of healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, discharge teams, and specialist practitioners. Team discussions focused on patients’ individual needs, medical progress, discharge planning, safeguarding considerations, family support arrangements, and longer-term care requirements.

Staff consistently described positive working relationships within their teams and reported feeling valued and able to contribute to patient care through a collaborative, whole-team approach. A proactive focus on staff wellbeing was also evident, with ongoing improvement initiatives supporting workforce wellbeing and engagement.

Communication between teams was effective, supported by structured handovers, safety huddles, ward rounds, and regular multidisciplinary discussions. We observed staff sharing information appropriately during handovers and multidisciplinary meetings, ensuring continuity of care and timely decision-making. Teams worked collaboratively with care coordinators, discharge services, specialist teams, and other departments across the organisation, maintaining effective working relationships that supported patient flow and discharge planning. We received positive feedback from the ambulance service who described having a good working relationship with the trust in order to care for patients.

During the inspection, we observed nursing and medical handovers at shift change for both adult and paediatric services. Handover discussions were well structured and included relevant information about patients’ clinical condition, ongoing care, investigations and any identified risks. Staff communicated clearly and professionally, demonstrating a good understanding of patients' needs and priorities.

The trust interprofessional working standards document was under review at the time of inspection to align with urgent and emergency care standards.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

Patients we spoke with felt staff supported them to manage their own health, care and wellbeing needs.

Staff assessed each patient’s health and provided support for any individual needs to help them live a healthier lifestyle. For example, staff supported people to access other appropriate services such as smoking‑cessation services, alcohol and drug recovery programmes, and mental health support services. The service had relevant information promoting healthy lifestyles and support across the trust. Information leaflets were readily available for patients.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The trust audits, referred to as COAST, provided a comprehensive assessment of performance across a range of key emergency department standards, including environment and infection prevention, medication management, team management, safeguarding, patient experience, documentation, nutrition, dementia care, and leadership. Overall compliance was approximately 83.9%, indicating that most standards were being met. Positive findings were seen across several domains, including leadership, team management, safeguarding processes, and the management of medicines, demonstrating established systems and governance arrangements within the department.

The audit also identified areas where further improvement was required. These included aspects of documentation, mattress and equipment management, and compliance with some clinical care pathways. Opportunities were identified to strengthen patient risk assessments, care planning, falls management, pain assessment, and the documentation of key clinical processes. The findings informed targeted action plans aimed at improving consistency, maintaining compliance with standards, and enhancing the overall quality and safety of patient care within the department.

Despite the issues we found during the assessment relating to staff documenting patient NEWS2 observations on paper charts, audit findings demonstrated 96% compliance with the standard. Minor exceptions were identified, including occasional gaps in the calculation of NEWS2 scores or the documentation of escalation actions. However, these were infrequent and did not detract from the overall performance demonstrated by the department. Regular auditing and monitoring arrangements were in place to maintain compliance and identify opportunities for further improvement.

Validation of care audits were undertaken, and the ED achieved an overall compliance score of 85.03%. The team management audits and assessment and documentation audits scored 100% overall and medication management scored 90% overall. Areas for improvement were identified in assessment/documentation 81.8% and dementia, learning disabilities & SWAN (Signs Words Actions and Needs) standards 84.6% and environment and IPC observations audits scored at 53.8% overall. Plans were in place to address the shortfalls found at audit.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff were supported by the trust safeguarding team for guidance around consent, mental capacity and best interest decisions making processes. Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.

They did this on a decision-specific basis for all decisions and with involvement of relatives which was evidenced in patient records.

The trust Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) latest commissioned report, published in October 2025 stated that there was a good system of internal control designed to meet the system objectives, and that controls were generally being applied consistently with recommendations for the trust to action.

Trust wide compliance for patient consent was audited in 2024 and 2025 noting that there were improvements. At the last audit, compliance audit data was around 84% with recommendations for further compliance and reoccurring annual auditing.

For patients at the end of life, staff started discussions with the patient and their family as early as possible about their preferred place of death. The trust followed the SWAN model, a values-based framework for end-of-life and bereavement care that focused on dignity and personalised care through Signs, Words, Actions, and Needs.