You are here

Archived provider: Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Good


Inspection carried out on 15 October to 14 November 2019

During a routine inspection

Our rating of the trust stayed the same. We rated it as good overall because:

At core services level, safe was requires improvement overall, with effective, responsive and well-led rated as good. Caring was rated as outstanding. The rating of well-led at core services level was good overall, and this was the same for the trust management. This led to a combined overall rating for the trust of good.

At core services level, safe remained as requires improvement overall following our last inspection published in early 2018, and more work was required in this area. The questions of effective, responsive and well-led remained as good. Caring improved and was rated as outstanding, following a good rating at the last inspection. This rating came from maternity services and end of life care services where it was rated as outstanding. This joined with the rating of outstanding for caring for children’s and young people’s services from our last inspection. In maternity, responsive was rated as outstanding for the first time. Maternity was not rated as outstanding overall due to a requirement for improvements in the question of safety.

We rated well-led at the trust management level again as good. We saw improvements had been made from our last inspection. As before, there was strong, consistent, visible leadership. The vision and strategy for the trust was clear. There was a great culture in the trust and among the staff across all areas. We were impressed with their friendliness and warmth. There was good engagement with patients and staff, although some more work to be done in the coming months when the trust starts to make significant changes. Innovation and improvement were strongly encouraged.

However, there were areas of concern around how the trust showed it learned from complaints, death and incidents. It was not achieving targets around appraisals and mandatory training and some areas were not improving. We found governance was not interconnected enough to provide full assurance.

Medical care (including older people’s care) was rated as good overall. However, the ratings stayed the same as last time with safe continuing to be rated as requires improvement. The other key questions were rated as good, and the service as good overall. In safe, mandatory training was not meeting the trust target in a number of key skills. We were concerned with safeguarding training and infection prevention and control not being met. We were concerned with some risk assessments for patients not being completed and records not always being maintained or clear. Nursing and medical staff vacancy rates were challenging for the hospital. Not all patients or those caring for them said they felt involved and informed in decisions about their care and treatment or offered emotional support following life changing news. However, patients were protected from abuse. Infection risk was well managed as were medicines. Patient records were mostly stored securely, and emergency equipment was checked as required. Patients were well looked after with care of their nutrition and hydration. Leadership of the service was good and staff had strong values focused on caring for the patient at the heart of these.

Surgery was rated as requires improvement overall. At our previous inspection, safe and well-led were rated as requires improvement. They remained at this rating, but responsive was downgraded to requires improvement from good. Effective and caring were rated as good. The service did not have sufficient levels of nurses or junior doctors. There was consequently a high degree of agency staff being used. There were issues with mandatory training compliance in the medical staff, infection risk was not always controlled well, and safety checks on emergency equipment not always carried out. Patient records were not always clear, including around nutrition and hydration and mental health assessments. Services were not being delivered in line with targets so some patients were having to wait too long. There was limited adaption for patients living with dementia. Governance and assurance were not well documented. However, patients were protected from abuse. Staff provided good care and treatment and were competent and skilled. Patients were treated with compassion and kindness, respecting their privacy and dignity. Staff felt respected, supported and valued.

Maternity was rated as good overall. Safe was requires improvement and caring and responsive were outstanding. The service was not rated outstanding overall as safe required improvement. Midwifery staff were up-to-date with their mandatory training. Infection risks were well managed, and midwife staffing levels were safe and regularly reviewed. Care and treatment were effective and based on national guidance. There was outstanding care given to women and families. The service met the needs of women and included those in need of extra support. The service was well-led, and staff felt supported and valued. There was effective governance and management of risk. Innovation and improvement were encouraged. However, medical staff were not achieving mandatory training compliance. There were missed opportunities for early identification of a safeguarding concern and there were a number of medicine errors identified on inspection.

End of life care was rated as good overall. Safe and effective remained good, with responsive moving from requires improvement to good, and caring from good to outstanding. Well-led remained good. Safe care was provided across end of life care services. Care was based upon national guidance and evidence-based practice. Staff were competent and skilled. Patients were able to make choices and supported to take decisions about their care and treatment. Care was patient-centred and there was strong emotional support for those close to the patient. Patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. The leadership had a clear vision and supported staff who felt valued and supported. Governance was working well with areas for improvement underway.

On this inspection we did not inspect urgent and emergency care (A&E), critical care, services for children and young people, or outpatients. The ratings we gave to these services on the previous inspection published in 2018 are part of the overall rating awarded to the trust this time.

Our decisions on overall ratings take into account, for example, the relative size of services and we use our professional judgement to reach a fair and balanced rating.

Our full Inspection report summarising what we found and the supporting Evidence appendix containing detailed evidence and data about the trust is available on our website –

CQC inspections of services

Inspection carried out on 6 Sept to 12 Oct 2017

During a routine inspection

Our rating of the trust improved. We rated it as good because:

  • Effective, caring, responsive and well-led care were good. The trust had a good track record in delivering effective, caring and well led care and had made significant improvements in the responsiveness of services we inspected. Although some aspects of safety across the trust had improved since our 2016 inspection, there were still significant concerns about safety within two out of three services we inspected (surgery and critical care). We noted significant improvements within the safety of the service for children and young people.
  • Surgery was good when we inspected in January 2016. However, we have rated as requiring improvement following this inspection as there were new concerns about the safety and leadership of the service since our previous inspection.
  • Critical care was found to be providing effective, caring, responsive and well led care. Caring within this service was found to be good rather than outstanding as it had previously been rated following the previous inspection in January 2016.
  • Overall, services for children and young people had improved which is reflected in their rating which has moved from requires improvement to good. Caring had improved from good to outstanding and responsive, well led and safety from requires improvement to good. Effective remained good.

Inspection carried out on 26-28 January and 8-10 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Poole Hospital is the hospital provided by Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The trust gained foundation status in 2007 and provides services to a local population of around 500,000 people, although this figure rises significantly between May and September each year, as Dorset is a popular holiday destination.

Poole Hospital has approximately 638 inpatient beds. The hospital provides the following services: urgent and emergency care, medical and older people’s care, surgery, critical care, maternity and gynaecology care, care of the young person, end of life care, and outpatient and diagnostic services. We inspected each of these eight core services at the hospital.

Poole Hospital is the trauma unit for East Dorset and the designated Cancer Centre for Dorset, providing medical and oncology services for the whole of the county, serving an approximate population of 750,000.

We inspected this hospital as part of our planned, comprehensive inspection programme. We carried out an announced inspection visit to the hospital from 26-28 January 2016, and additional unannounced inspection visits from 8 -10 February 2016. The inspection team included a Chair, a CQC Head of Hospital Inspection, managers, inspectors, planners and analysts. Doctors, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, senior NHS managers and an ‘expert by experience’ were also part of the team.

We inspected the following core services at Poole Hospital: Urgent and emergency care, medical care, surgery, critical care, maternity and gynaecology, children and young people, end of life care, outpatient and diagnostic services.

Overall, we rated this hospital as ‘requires improvement’. We rated it ‘good’ for providing effective, caring and well-led services and ‘requires improvement’ for safe and responsive services. The trust was rated as ‘good’ for being well led overall.

We rated urgent and emergency care services, medical care, surgical services, maternity and gynaecology, end of life care and outpatient services as good, and critical care, and services for children and young people as requires improvement.

Our key findings were as follows:

Is the trust well-led?

  • The trust had a five year strategy that aimed to deliver safe, high quality and patient-centred services in partnership. The strategy and services of the trust would be determined by the outcome of the Dorset Clinical Services Review. The trust strategy was focused on being the major emergency care site in East Dorset.
  • Governance arrangements were well developed at the trust. There was a focus on patient experience, clinical effectiveness and patient safety. The trust could demonstrate progress and improvement against most of its quality improvement projects.
  • The trust had been through a period of significant change. The leadership team showed passion, commitment and enthusiasm to develop and continuously improve services. The team were described as open and approachable with a collaborative way of working with staff.
  • ‘The Poole Approach’ described a set of values for staff around patient focused compassionate care. This approach was well embedded as the culture of the trust. Staff were positive about working for the trust and the quality of care they provided. They described a trust culture that was open and patient focused.
  • The NHS staff survey demonstrated staff engagement was in the top 20% of trusts nationally. The trust needed to ensure black, Asian and minority ethnic groups had similar equal opportunities and career progression. Action was being taken to improve this.
  • Patient surveys were used to improve services although there was less evidence of patient and public engagement to develop services overall.
  • The trust supported and encouraged staff to innovate and improve services.
  • Cost improvement programmes were identified with clinical staff, and these were assessed and monitored to reduce the impact on quality and risk. However, expected savings had not been achieved in all areas and the trust had increased costs based their on the casemix of emergency work, which was increasing, and staffing costs. The trust was continuing with its financial recovery plan to reduce its financial deficit and would need to negotiate it current position under the national sustainability transformation plans. .

Are services safe?

  • Staff were encouraged to report incidents. The Trust overall had a culture of safety where incidents were mainly appropriately reported and followed up. Learning was shared and changes made as a result of this to improve the safety of services. However, clinical safety incidents were not consistently reported in the maternity service where midwives told us that they were unable to report all incidents due to staffing pressures. The children and young person’s service had also not always ensured learning from incidents was embedded in practice.
  • The rate of NRLS reported incidents per 100 admissions is 45% higher than the England average: 12.2 per 100 admissions, against an England average of 8.4 per 100 admissions. There was one never event reported in the trust and 88 serious incidents between August 2014 and July 2015.
  • Patients arriving to the emergency department by ambulance were assessed and treated within national standard times. The trust time to treatment had been better than the England average since October 2013.
  • Staff carried out risk assessments and management plans for patients in a timely way although this was not entirely robust within the care of the elderly wards. Some patient risk assessments and fluid charts on these wards were incomplete.
  • The early warning score system needed to be used more reliably for the escalation of patients whose condition might deteriorate.
  • In some operating theatres, staff did not follow the five steps for surgical safety reliably or accurately in order to minimise the risks to patients.
  • The NHS safety thermometer is a monthly snap shot of the prevalence of avoidable harms, in particular new pressure ulcers, catheter-related urinary tract infections, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and falls. At the trust, from July to September 2015, the trust had identified 97% of care was harm free.
  • Medicines were not consistently managed in some areas across the hospital. Medicines were not always kept safe at the correct temperature, or stored securely in line with current legislation, in the ED, critical care and surgery departments.
  • Staff generally adhered to infection control procedures, but systems and processes for monitoring infection control standards in some services were not always reliable or appropriate to keep people safe. Premises and equipment were not always kept clean and cleaning was not always done in line with current legislation and guidance. Most wards and clinical areas were clean. However, areas in the delivery suite and ANDA were visibly dirty.
  • In the Emergency Department, patients were sometimes at risk of harm as they did not always receive name-bands within an appropriate time; this meant they could have had the wrong treatment or care if they were unable to tell staff their name.
  • Suitable equipment was available in all areas. Equipment was checked and stored appropriately in most clinical areas. However some of the equipment remained unchecked and unsuitable for immediate use in a post maternity clinic. Within the theatre complex, there was not a robust system for calling for emergency assistance.
  • Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities towards vulnerable adults and children, but in the ED, there was low take up of training for reception staff. In the medicine core service, there was no named safeguarding doctor for adult safeguarding.
  • Mandatory training compliance was sometimes below the trust target, and this was often as a result of staffing levels, as staff could not always be released to attend.
  • There were not consistent numbers of staff in terms of staffing levels and skill mix as planned by the trust on medical and older people’s wards and in paediatrics. The Trust had tried to mitigate this risk by having on-going nurse recruitment which was successful in some areas. Midwives said they were regularly short-staffed and were not able to consistently provide one to one care to women during established labour.
  • Medical staffing levels were mainly appropriate. There were areas where further recruitment was necessary.
  • In diagnostic imaging, staffing was a concern. There were five radiographer vacancies (25% of the workforce) affecting MR and CT scanning. Staff reported heavy workloads and concerns with the demands on the on-call rotas.
  • Senior clinical staff were aware of the Duty of Candour regulation and the importance of being open and transparent with patients and families.

Are services effective?

  • The treatment and care provided in most services took account of current evidence-based guidelines. However, although evidence-based guidelines for the care and treatment of sepsis patients in the emergency department were followed, although some records had important pre-sepsis checks omitted.
  • Services participated in national and local audits. There was appropriate monitoring of performance against national targets although this needed to improve medical services and for end of life care.
  • Pain relief was given in a timely manner. Pain scores were used as part of the normal observations to record patients’ pain and to ensure that medicines for pain were effective. However, the use of pain tools designed for children were not being used within ED.
  • Patients nutrition and hydration needs were met appropriately. Patients who required intravenous fluids had these prescribed, administered and recorded appropriately.
  • Patients received drinks and food in a timely manner. There were protected mealtimes and staff to support patients who required extra help.
  • Care and treatment for people following a stroke was below the national average and the trust had been slow to implement improvements.
  • Patients were cared for by a multi-disciplinary teams working in a co-ordinated way. Staff reported good working relationships and clear lines of clinical responsibility with specialist teams who were called to review patients.
  • Many services had developed across seven days a week. However, there were reported delays for patients who required mental health assessment out of hours and over the weekends: these services were supplied by a local mental health trust. Stroke inpatients also received significantly less physiotherapy than patients’ nationally.
  • Many staff had access to specific training to ensure they were able to meet the needs of the patients they delivered care to and there were educational opportunities available for all grades of medical and nursing staff.
  • Staff had clinical supervision and appraisal, although appraisal rates for medical staff in the Emergency department were low.
  • Staff had immediate access to patient information. There were robust systems and processes to ensure that information was kept secure, but was available to all clinical staff that needed access to them.
  • Most staff followed consent procedures and had overall good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which ensures that decisions are made in patients’ best interests.

Are services caring?

  • All staff made a concerted and sustained effort to ensure that patients, carers and relatives were treated with kindness and support. We observed that staff were consistently kind and compassionate, putting the patient at the centre of care. Receptionists at the front door made a concerted effort to put any visitors or patients at ease, and this level of high support and regard continued throughout the hospital. Staff told us they were encouraged, no matter how busy, to stop to take time to help or reassure anyone in the hospital and this sometimes involved escorting people to unfamiliar areas, rather than just telling them how to get there.
  • However, on the medical and care of the elderly wards, some concerns were expressed prior to our inspection about personal care, and staff understanding of people living with dementia. Further feedback from some patients and relatives on medical wards indicated they did not (always) feel informed or involved in decisions about their care. This inconsistency was also reflected in feedback we received at our listening /public engagement event immediately prior to our inspection.
  • Many patients, relatives and families told us they were kept informed of plans for on-going care and treatment. They said they had been given personalised support, adapted to their ability to take on complex or emotional information.
  • Patients and their families were supported by staff to reduce anxiety and concern. They felt involved in the decision-making process and had been given clear information about treatment options: they then felt enabled to ask questions of senior medical and nursing staff and be supported to make the decision that was right for them or for their loved one. There was further emotional care from the chaplaincy and bereavement services, and counselling support where required for patients and families.
  • Dignity and respect for patients was maintained at all times during treatment or examination. There were signs on curtains to remind staff and relatives that they needed to ask permission before entering.
  • Overall, the trust consistently scored better than the England average for the Friends and Family test.

Are services responsive?

  • At the time of the inspection the hospital’s services, and those of other acute hospitals in Dorset, were subject to the Dorset Clinical Services Review to redesign and improve quality of care for people in the county.
  • Bed occupancy in the hospital ranged between 86-98%. This was consistently above the England average. It is generally accepted that at 85% level, bed occupancy can start to affect the quality of care provided to patients, and the orderly running of the hospital.
  • Performance in meeting national emergency access target for 95% of patients to be admitted, transferred or discharged from ED within 4 hours had varied through the year. The target was met between May 2015 and August 2015, and again in September 2015. Overall the trust performance had been in line of better than the England average.
  • The trust reported 72 black breaches between November 2014 and October 2015. This is when ambulances are not able to hand over patients within one hour. A lack of physical capacity in the hospital was the main reported reason for this. The ambulance median time to treatment was around the standard of 60 minutes.
  • The percentage of patients waiting 4 -12 hours in the emergency department for a bed in the hospital had been decreasing since October 2014. However, the trust still remained below the England average.
  • The acute medical admissions ward, rapid assessment consultant evaluation unit (RACE), and medical investigations unit had contributed to the trust’s ability to support older patients and manage the increasing pressures on beds.
  • There were 32 medical outliers at the time of inspection. These patients were appropriately assessed, and there was a robust process to ensure junior and senior medical staff from the relevant speciality reviewed medical outliers regularly.
  • In November 2015, 93% of patients with fractured neck of femur had surgery with 36 hours of being medically fit, 96% within 48 hours and 89% within 24 hours of being medically fit.
  • The trust had identified patient flow through the hospital as a significant concern. In the period October to December 2015, the trust had mixed achievements in meeting the 18 week incomplete pathway for referral to treatment (RTT) standard. National standards detail that 92% of patients should start treatment within 18 weeks of referral for treatment. This data was for patients who were having elective procedures carried out at the hospital. General surgery and trauma and orthopaedic service met this target. However, ENT and oral surgery services did not meet this target, with compliance rates ranging from 87% to 91%.
  • The hospital’s cancellation rate for operations was similar to the England average. The percentage of patients whose operation was cancelled and were not treated within 28 days was lower (better) than the England average.
  • The critical care unit had a low rate of elective surgical operations being cancelled because a critical care bed was not available. However, patients fit for wards were not always transferred out of critical care within 24 hours. Thames-Valley and Wessex networks leads carried out a review in July 2015. The trust was identified as an outlier on the NHSE national dashboard. A further review was planned for January 2016.
  • In critical care, there were 39% of delayed discharges over 12 hours to wards due to lack of bed availability in the rest of the hospital, which meant patients could not be discharged to a ward at the earliest opportunity. There was an action plan in place which included meeting with director of operations to discuss this issue and identify solutions. This would be fed into the Best Practice Organisational Flow Group. The trust had recognised this was an ongoing problem and was not meeting NHS England key performance indicator.
  • Senior managers in maternity told us they had not completed an assessment of needs to analyse how the service should be planned and delivered to local people. However, they had used feedback and data to develop a strategy for maternity services. The trust wide bed occupancy rates for maternity and gynaecology were higher than the England average and fluctuated between 65% and 83%. For example, from April 2015 to June 2016 the trust reported a bed occupancy rate of 82.8% compared with the England average of just over 60%.
  • Pregnant women had prompt access to maternity services. The national and trust target for booking women for ante natal care by 12 weeks and 6 days gestation was 90%. The hospital consistently exceeded the trust and national targets for April 2015 to September 2015 with an average of 96.2% of women booked within the timeframe.
  • Staff told us the 24 hour paediatric assessment unit improved patient flow. They felt having a facility whereby patients could be observed for longer than four hours allowed the paediatric team to reduce their admission rate to inpatient areas. GPs could refer children to the assessment unit, and following triage children were then admitted or they could return home. There was a system for recording waiting time within the assessment unit.
  • The trust short notice cancellation rate for outpatient appointments was lower (better) than the England average. ‘Did not attend’ rates were also lower (better) than the England average and phone calls and texts were used to remind patients of appointments.
  • The trust was meeting cancer waiting times for patients to see a specialist within 2 weeks and from decision to treat to first definitive treatment within 31 days. The trust also met the waiting times target for from 2 Week Wait referral to first definitive treatment within 62 days (April 2014 to October 2015) in 14 out of the 19 months. Overall performance for this period was 86.6% (target ≥85%).
  • The hospital delivered patient centred end of life care in a responsive and timely way. The hospital specialist palliative care teams assessed newly referred patients within 24 hours as outlined in the Operational Policy for the Poole Palliative Care Service. The community specialist palliative care nurses assessed patients within three days of the referral.
  • The trust operated a Rapid Discharge Home to Die (RDHD) pathway which served to discharge a dying patient who expressed wanting to die at home within 24 hours. However, this was not monitored appropriately.
  • The trust was working in partnership with social care services to effectively support the discharge or patients, particularly patients with complex needs.
  • Clinical staff did not always know how to access information to support them in meeting the needs of patients with a learning disability. There was not a specialist nurse, team or link nurse scheme to support where staff could receive advice and support to enable them to support these patients effectively.
  • There was a clear and comprehensive complaints process. Staff understood how to manage complaints and there was evidence of learning from concerns and complaints. Patient feedback was sought and welcomed across the trust. This feedback was obtained from patient surveys and comment cards. The comments were largely positive.

Are services well-led?

  • The trust had published its vision, values, mission statement and objectives, and had taken action to assess and improve staff understanding of these. Staff used “The Poole Approach” (a delivery method of ensuring patients and relatives were at the heart of their care) as a daily strategy for internal and external communications.
  • Staff felt that the executive team provided a strong, visible and supportive presence within the trust. Staff were positive about all the directors in the trust. However, some identified that some senior staff who attended bed meetings as obstructive and unsupportive. They also described difficulties in accessing these staff. For example, some senior nurses described having to wait in a corridor for up to an hour for requests for extra staff to be signed and agreed.
  • The Director of Nursing provides end of life care leadership at trust board level and had good oversight of end of life care issues across both specialist palliative care and the acute medical wards.
  • The trust was part of the ongoing Dorset wide clinical service review and the Developing One Dorset vanguard to integrate acute care. Most services had developed interim strategic plans within this context. However, there was not a service-wide strategy or vision for paediatric services. The paediatric service had lacked leadership at a senior nursing level until an acting matron was appointed in January 2016. Senior managers in paediatrics and maternity services did not consistently demonstrate an understanding of current service risks.
  • Some services had effective clinical governance arrangements to monitor quality, risk and performance, but some local risk registers did not always reflect all of the concerns described to us by staff, or provide sufficient detail on actions being taken. The risk registers did not include key issues such lack of staffing on the paediatric wards or the maternity concerns regarding delays to care and the inability to consistently provide one to one care in labour. A few issues, such as paediatric staffing levels not being as planned, had not been formally raised to the executive team.
  • Staff told us they were proud to work for their trust and some had done so for many years.
  • Patient feedback was mainly through surveys and there was less evidence of other engagement opportunities.
  • There was active participation in research and quality improvement projects, and the Outpatient and Diagnostics departments had highlighted much innovative practice.

We saw areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The trust had developed a set of values called "The Poole Approach". The Poole Approach was established in the early 1990s as a philosophy of care. It pledges thatstaff at Poole Hospitalwill strive at all times to provide friendly, professional, patient-centred care with dignity and respect for all. These values were well embedded with staff working in the hospital. Staff were consistently kind and compassionate, putting the patient at the centre of care. Receptionists at the front door made a concerted effort to put any visitors or patients at ease, and this level of high support and regard continued throughout the hospital. Staff told us they were encouraged, no matter how busy, to stop to take time to help or reassure anyone in the hospital.
  • The rapid assessment consultant evaluation (RACE) unit provided a high multi-disciplinary quality of care specifically for older patients, over the age of 80. The unit provided a seven day service and was reducing the number of elderly patient admissions and the length of stay for elderly patients that were admitted.
  • For neonates, children and young people receiving palliative care, the trust had designed a special unit called the Gully’s Place Suite. This was a purpose-designed space which provided privacy and dignity for parents and families of babies, children and young people who required palliative and end-of-life care.
  • Nuclear medicine was an exceptionally well led multidisciplinary service. They have had an increasing workload, with no breaches of waiting times. Patients interviewed confirmed an outstanding level of care, information to provided patients and concerns responded to appropriately. The department has also safely introduced two new radio pharmaceuticals based on scientific evidence. Medical Physics have developed a new dental phantom; a commercial product.
  • Non-invasive cardiology in CT and MRI imaging have reduced the need for invasive tests on patients with low and medium risk of coronary disease whilst ensuring high risk patients are transferred quickly to the neighbouring hospital. There is excellent team working between cardiology and radiology to provide this service.

However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

​ Importantly, the trust must ensure:

  • ​Action is taken to improve the cleanliness of clinical areas at St. Marys hospital and this is monitored to ensure good infection control practices.
  • Delivery rooms meet with Department of Health regulations
  • A review of the midwifery staffing to ensure sufficient staff are available to provide one to one care in labour.
  • Medicines are stored at the appropriate fridge temperature and are recorded daily.
  • Medicines are stored safely and securely including intravenous fluids. This should be in line with current legislations, trust’s policies and standard operating procedures.
  • Appropriate dates are placed on medicines once opened.
  • Patient group directions are correctly completed and in-date for staff to use.
  • Flooring is accessible for cleaning purposes and that equipment is clean and protected from dust.
  • There is a process for calling for emergency assistance in the theatre complex.
  • There is appropriate support for patients with a learning disability including better flagging and referral for patients to specialist
  • Equipment on the wards is in date and stored in a safe manner.
  • The five steps to safer surgery checklist is appropriately completed.
  • Review the emergency theatre arrangements to ensure patient safety and wellbeing is not adversely affected.
  • The staffing levels and skills mix is assessed in all areas and staffing is delivered as planned.
  • Patient records are secure stored so as not to breech patient confidentiality and to prevent unauthorised access, particularly in medicine and maternity departments.
  • Risk register includes all factors that may adversely affect patient safety.
  • Learning from incidents are embedded in practice.
  • Implement a flagging alert system to identify Looked After Children within the trust
  • Ensure secure access arrangements are in place to the paediatric unit out of hours.
  • Implement policies and protocols for children and young people for absconding or for restraint.
  • Patients and members are informed of the public of the safety thermometer results.
  • Where relevant, DNA CPR forms must be endorsed by a consultant grade doctor.
  • There is a clear and measurable action plan which details how they will improve patient outcomes with regard to the organisational targets and key performance indicators as measured in the National Care of the Dying Audit.
  • Service leads review how they use data to improve patient outcomes.
  • An end-of-life care policy is developed that addresses the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining treatment for critical care patients.
  • End of life care patients are given sufficient opportunity to identify their preferred place of care.
  • There are no mixed sex breaches in critical care.

The trust should ensure

  • Update the Being Open Policy to ensure there is specific and appropriate reference to Duty of Candour.
  • Arrangements for safeguarding continue to improve.
  • Action is taken to improve assurance around risk.
  • Actions as a result of Workforce Race Equality Indicators are implemented quickly.
  • There is an effective response to staff concerns around areas identified as inflexible.
  • Further develop patient and public engagement.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Use of resources

These reports look at how NHS hospital trusts use resources, and give recommendations for improvement where needed. They are based on assessments carried out by NHS Improvement, alongside scheduled inspections led by CQC. We’re currently piloting how we work together to confirm the findings of these assessments and present the reports and ratings alongside our other inspection information. The Use of Resources reports include a ‘shadow’ (indicative) rating for the trust’s use of resources.

Intelligent Monitoring

We use our system of intelligent monitoring of indicators to direct our resources to where they are most needed. Our analysts have developed this monitoring to give our inspectors a clear picture of the areas of care that need to be followed up.

Together with local information from partners and the public, this monitoring helps us to decide when, where and what to inspect.

Joint inspection reports with Ofsted

We carry out joint inspections with Ofsted. As part of each inspection, we look at the way health services provide care and treatment to people.