Worthing 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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. We assessed all quality statements in this key question.

The service took proactive steps to ensure children and young people received timely care. Staff admitted children with long-term conditions directly to Bluefin Ward to avoid unnecessary visits to the emergency department. The children and young people assessment unit accepted referrals from GPs and the emergency department for children who needed urgent review but did not require admission. Staff supported children with neurodiverse needs, and Bluefin Ward had recently received an enclosed sensory bed to enhance comfort and accessibility.

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 completed comprehensive holistic assessments on all children and young people. The young person’s needs and preferences were at the centre of the planned care and treatment. Staff considered themselves the children’s advocate. We reviewed 10 sets of records and found care plans were individualised and reflected children and young people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, and included input from play assistants and youth workers. Comments from children included “doctors spoke in a way I could understand and asked me what I thought about the plan” and “when I said it hurt; they responded quickly and tried different things until it eased”.

The service used Positive Behaviour Support Plans to record the needs of children with extra support requirements, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), or neurodiverse traits. Families often shared hospital passports or “About Me” documents to help staff provide personalised care. Parents said staff made helpful adjustments, such as creating a social story to explain coming to the hospital to a non-verbal child, which the parent could also use to prepare their child.

There was a learning disabilities clinical nurse specialist. The learning disability clinical nurse specialist supported children and young people in hospital by advocating for their needs, ensuring accessible communication, and coordinating their care. They trained staff to make reasonable adjustments, reduced children and young people anxiety through tailored preparation, and improved the overall hospital experience for families. Their involvement enhanced staff confidence safeguarded vulnerable children and young people and contributed to better health outcomes through inclusive and person-centred care. For example, parents told us “the staff were amazing and help when my daughter needed a blood test. She was so anxious, but the nurse distracted her and it was all over so fast”. Staff would book neurodiverse children in at the end of the clinic when it was quieter so they were able to attend.

Every department we visited during the assessment prioritised person-centred care. Staff ensured that translation services, including British Sign Language, were available to support communication needs. Staff booked neurodiverse children at the end of clinics, when the environment was quieter. This reduced noise, waiting‑time stress and sensory overload, helping children feel calm and able to attend and take part in their appointment.

Play specialists attended appointments and visited the emergency department to support anxious or neurodiverse children during their care. Parents told us, “Play specialists helped distract my child—this really reduced anxiety before the procedure.”

All areas were fully accessible for wheelchair users and included spacious toilets and washing facilities. Staff used hoists and specialist lifting equipment when needed, and hearing loops were in place to assist children with hearing aids, ensuring inclusive and dignified care throughout.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Children, young people and families received care and treatment from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. Services worked closely across hospital, community, primary care, education and social care, using clear pathways and shared care plans so families did not have to repeat their story and transitions between services were smooth.

Staff described a service that linked well with primary care, specialist teams and schools to provide coordinated care for children and young people. Children and young people with lifelong care needs were supported to transition from children’s services to adult services with long handover periods. Clinical nurse specialists were key workers coordinating care and being a point of contact for children and young people and the specialist care teams.

The service delivered and coordinated care in a way that recognised and responded to the individual needs and preferences of different children and families, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at greatest risk of a poorer experience of care. Consultants and the wider team understood the challenges and potential pitfalls of transition from children to adult services and addressed these proactively. They worked closely with young people and families at an individual level, while also strengthening pathways at a service level, to ensure transitions felt planned, supportive and clear. The service put plans in place to promote equity of access to adult services, helping young people feel informed, supported and confident as they moved on.

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 made appropriate notifications to external bodies when required. They maintained confidentiality through robust information governance systems and ensured children and young people records were handled securely.

The service followed the Accessible Information Standard, which means it made sure children, young people and families could get information in ways they could understand. Staff provided information on treatments, local services, rights, and how to raise concerns in formats that met individual needs, including extra communication support when required.

Staff provided leaflets in the languages used by families accessing the service and kept parents and carers regularly informed about the child or young person’s progress. Families said their child was reviewed by doctors regularly and that staff listened carefully to their views and concerns about their child’s health. Children, young people and their parents or carers told us “staff explained the procedure step by step and checked I was okay afterwards” and “introductions were clear and staff explained things well”.

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.

Staff managed complaints effectively and ensured children, young people and their families knew how to raise concerns. Families told us they would speak to the nurse in charge in the first instance. Staff responded promptly to concerns and aimed to resolve issues early, addressing complaints as soon as they became aware of them to prevent escalation. Formal complaints were managed by the Service Quality and Safety Leads and their team. Records showed that complaints made on the ward were related to unclear treatment plans from surgeons and long waits for post-surgical review and discharge.

Between September 2024 and September 2025, Bluefin Ward recorded 5 complaints. These included a suspected misdiagnosis, 2 concerns about treatment delays, 1 about communication with relatives and carers, and one relating to unmet needs. No complaints were referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman during this period.

Staff produced quarterly learning reports from complaints and PALS contacts and shared them with key governance groups to support Trust‑wide improvements. They also reviewed children’s services learning monthly within Women’s and Children’s governance meetings, ensuring insights from Bluefin informed wider quality initiatives across all sites, including Worthing Hospital.

For complaints relating to long outpatient waiting times the children and young people department responded by prioritising referrals by clinical need and offering appointments at other trust sites, keeping families informed throughout. The children and young people safety team acted as key contacts for serious complaints, providing updates in families’ preferred formats. All complaints were acknowledged by email. Staff received feedback from investigations and used it to improve care, and the safety team shared learning through ward huddles and multidisciplinary team (MDT) handovers.

The children and young people safety team acted as key contacts for serious complaints, providing updates in families’ preferred formats. All complaints were acknowledged by email. Staff received feedback from investigations and used it to improve care, and the safety team shared learning through ward huddles and MDT handovers.

Most complaints were resolved within agreed timescales, and learning from feedback led to improvements such as better communication with families, changes to how services were organised and improved access to surveys and communication tools. Some ongoing risks remained, particularly around waiting times and access to services, which the service continued to monitor.

Bluefin Ward received written compliments and many verbal expressions of thanks from families, although not all verbal feedback was formally recorded. Families praised staff professionalism, teamwork and kindness, especially during emergency care and planned surgery. Feedback consistently highlighted the ward’s strong focus on children, and young people’s wellbeing and the compassionate, high‑quality care provided.

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.

Bluefin Ward worked collaboratively with GP’s, the children’s emergency department and the day assessment unit to ensure children and young people are reviewed, treated and discharged home as soon as possible. The day assessment unit accepted direct referrals from the GP’s so that children and young people did not have to wait in the emergency department to be seen. Children with long-term conditions could return to the ward if needed, and all children who were discharged from Bluefin Ward could return directly within 72 hours if they had concerns.

Staff in the day assessment unit regularly liaised with the children’s emergency department and admit children to the unit for a review to help with patient flow. Staff planned discharges carefully, working with everyone involved in the child’s care to ensure smooth follow-up. Staff said delays sometimes happened, for example when waiting for a surgical review or for medications from the pharmacy. Medical cover was in place during both day and night shifts, and doctors responded promptly to emergencies on the ward.

The service reviewed waiting times, missed appointments, and emergency access, and was working on a Health Inequalities Plan. They improved staff digital skills and planned a Cultural Sensitivity Group to make services fairer and more inclusive, while also improving ways for families to give feedback.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 across the service and wider organisation promoted a culture where children, young people and their families felt empowered to share their views. Parent or carers and children old enough to do so contributed to the ward round and shared their views on care. In addition, the friends and family test questionnaire was shared with families after admission however there was a low response rate of only 17%. Oncology children and young people provided feedback about care via the network questionnaire.

The service checked its policies to make sure they were fair and did not disadvantage anyone. Staff received training in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights to provide more person-centred care. They also set up a cultural sensitivity board to review health inequality data and plan improvements for more inclusive healthcare.

At the Child Development Centre, parents raised concerns about long waits for autism assessments and unclear information about support. The service responded by starting a project to improve information and guidance. In neonatal care, staff arranged one-to-one play sessions for a sibling with SEND so families could focus on their newborn, showing care for the whole family

Staff involved children, young people, and their families in planning care and making decisions, using tools like visual aids, social stories, and communication passports for children with learning difficulties. Psychological support was available through counsellors and mental health services. Appointments were flexible, including virtual options, and family-friendly facilities like overnight stays and rest areas were provided. Staff asked for feedback to improve services, followed safeguarding rules, offered independent advocates, and respected cultural and religious needs with suitable food and prayer spaces.

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

Staff supported children and young people to make decisions about their care, treatment and future, including decisions around advance care planning. They created personalised care plans that reflected each child’s needs, wishes and feelings. Records reviewed during the assessment confirmed that personalised care plans were being used. For example, one care plan contained parent notes on what helped calm their child if they became upset (e.g., storytelling, breathing exercises)

Staff managed and communicated end-of-life care sensitively and with dignity, ensuring families felt supported throughout. They involved all relevant healthcare professionals and external agencies in planning care for children and young people with complex needs. The local children’s hospice had close links with the ward and provided specialist care for this group of children and young people.