Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Good: This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

We rated this key question as Good because:

• Managers were visible in the service and worked with staff to improve the quality of the care and treatment they provided.
• Managers worked to ensure the service met the needs of the local community.
• The trust collected feedback from people who used the service to improve the service.

However:

• Audits had not identified issues with equipment.
• Not all staff had completed their mandatory safeguarding adults training.

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.

Staff and managers told us that they understood the vision for their service and how it fitted with the overall strategy for the trust.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare formed in October 2024 following the coming together of services from four trusts with the aim to increase cohesive centralised care to the population from a single trust. This meant there had been lots of changes for the trust. The staff at the UTC told us that the impact on them had been minimal, as local leaders had not changed. Staff told us that the senior leaders have been supportive of the service agreeing to increase staffing on the unit due to the increased demand on the service. Managers told us they felt listened to when they were telling newer senior staff about the needs of the service.

Staff told us that they had faith in their managers knowledge and skills. Managers had time built in when they worked in the unit so that they were aware of the pressures faced by the staff working directly with patients.

Managers we spoke to could explain the challenges faced by the staff team. They were able to explain where there were issues and what action, they were taking to address them. For example, there was issues with inappropriate referrals coming to the service from NHS 111 so they had worked with the NHS 111 team so they had a greater understanding of what could be referred to them and made an agreement that they couldrefer inappropriate referrals back to the 111 service.

Staff told us that managers were visible within the service and approachable. Senior leaders from the trust visited the service and made themselves available to staff teams.

The trust encouraged people to give feedback about their experience of using the service. Patients could give feedback to the service via a friends and family survey, the trust website, feedback cards, letters and there is also a QR code in reception for patients to scan. The staff team has access to any feedback they receive, and they discussed this at team meetings and team huddles. Managers made sure that staff addressed any identified actions. For example, the service received feedback that they had not explained that they prioritised patients based on risk. This meant some patients felt others were seen quicker than them, the staff now tell patients they will be seen based on risk first. The staff team also changed their process so that staff told patients when waiting times changed.

The trust has a clear process for staff to follow if they need to apply for flexible working. For example, if staff wanted to work the same hours over less days and applying to work during school term times only. There was a clear process in place to follow if a manager could not accept the request due to the needs of the service. Managers worked with staff to make any adjustments they needed to carry out their role.

The trust monitored its workforce to review how well it represented the community it supported and to ensure all staff were treated with dignity and respect. The trust reported its workforce data nationally.

The trust had staff group forums to represent the needs of LGBTQ+ and BAME staff members.

There was a clear governance process in place that allowed staff and managers to identify issues and address them. The local governance system fed into the wider trusts process. Managers produced a quarterly report which showed learning from incidents and showed how the service performed against recognised national standards on attendance levels, onward referrals, triage and waiting times. This allowed the service to measure their performance and make changes to address concerns. For example, the impact of signposting to other services on waiting times. However, we found that the paediatricresuscitation electrode pads had expired over a year before the inspection. This meant that staff were not assured that this equipment would work if needed. Staff replaced the pads when we raised this with them. We also found that not all staff were up to date with their mandatory safeguarding training.

The service reviewed its audit compliance and then identified actions to address them. Managers developed action plans and named which member of the staff team was responsible for completing the action.

Staff had a clear understanding of how they worked with other services within the trust and with other providers such as GP’s and local acute hospitals.

The service had emergency plans in place for dealing with emergencies and took part in a mass casualty simulation around the need to evacuate a cruise ship.

The service engaged with local communities and other providers. They were part of a local urgent treatment network and could use this to learn from other teams and share their own good practice.

There were clear feedback processes in place and when needed patients could meet with senior leaders to explain their experience of using the service. Managers ensured patients were involved in reviews of patient safety events.

The staff team meet regularly, and managers gave them the opportunity to consider improvements to the service. The service took part in national audits and acted on the results. At the time of the inspection there were no quality improvement programmes taking place and the service was not part of a national accreditation scheme.