Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We rated this key question as good because:

• Staff provided care and treatment based on the patients needs.
• Staff assessed patients’ need when they arrived at the service and supported them based on this assessment.
• The service had responded to the needs of the local community by increasing staff to meet the demand.
• The service activelysort feedback from patients and senior staff investigated all complaints and looked to agree solutions with the person who complained.

However:

• They did not always meet the agreed waiting times for triage and treatment.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was information on how to complain displayed at the service. The staff would refer patients to safeguarding teams if they had any concerns and would report notifiable information via national reporting systems. For example, adverse drug reactions and incidents involving patients.

Managers had ensured the service was able to meet the needs of the local community. The service was commissioned for 60 appointments a day but was providing 120 a day at the time of the inspection. Managers had increased the numbers of staff working in the service so it could respond to the increase in demand.

The service had a good relationship with other services. For example, they had worked with an ambulance service so that if they needed to request the ambulance service to transfer a patient, they used the same risk categories as the ambulance provider.

There was information on how to complain displayed at the service. The staff would refer patients to safeguarding teams if they had any concerns and would report notifiable information via national reporting systems. For example, adverse drug reactions and incidents involving patients.

In the 12 months prior to our inspection the service had received 12 complaints and 71 compliments. Complaint themes included attitude of staff, questioning clinical decisions, communication and staff not sending patients for X-ray when it was later found that the patient had a fracture. We saw that senior staff investigated all complaints, and any learning was shared with the team in meetings and daily safety huddles. When concerns related to individual team members, managers met with the staff to discuss what action was needed. For example, additional training.

Managers received compliments via surveys, cards, telephone calls, emails, letters and feedback left on the trust's website. Compliments received included kindness and professionalism of the staff team, speed with which people were seen and arranging for the patient to be seen by an alternative service such as acute hospitals.

The service always looked to make improvements following any concerns raised with them. No complaints had been escalated to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsmen in the 12 months prior to our inspection.

The trust monitored waiting times and measured their performance against three national standards. Ninety-two percent of patients were seen and treated within 2 hours of a booked appointment within the last 3 months, against a national standard of 95%. Staff told us that the service did not always meet this standard because patients triaged as a higher risk were always seen first. Seventy-one percent of patients were triaged within 15 minutes of arrival during the last 3 months, against a national target of 100%. Staff told us that the increased number of patients had affected this standard. There was also a national target for 95% of all patients to be seen and discharged within 4 hours of attending the service, and in the past 3 months this was achieved in 97% of cases.

The trust had ensured that all staff had completed training in equality and diversity, and all staff were up to date with this training. This meant the staff team would recognise which patients were most likely to experience inequality within health care and would adjust their approach to meet this need.

Staff worked with patients to develop care plans that met an individual’s personalised needs. Staff completed notes so that all relevant information was available to other healthcare professionals and agencies. If needed staff would contact other agencies directly to tell them of their involvement and any future actions that were needed.