Nuffield Health Warwickshire 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

The service ensured people could access treatment in a timely manner when they needed it. The service provided person-centred care and made adjustments to help people access services.

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.

During our onsite assessment, we spoke with patients who told us they had been involved in their care and treatment and involved in decision making. We were told there was good support from the physiotherapists and occupational therapists regarding discharge readiness.

The ward area was designed to meet the needs of patients. Each patient had their own room with a bathroom. Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences. A dementia box was in place on the ward and staff used flowers to identify patients living with dementia. We saw dementia flowers displayed on the board to identify patients during our assessment. Staff said patients living with dementia were sometimes admitted with ‘this is me’ book. There were reasonable adjustments made so that people with a disability could access and use services on an equal basis to others. Managers made sure staff, patients and carers could access interpreters or signers when needed. Information on interpreting services was readily available.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients told us they were informed about their care. They all knew why they were in hospital, what operation they were having and what the next steps were for their recovery.

Staff ensured people who used the service were provided with information that was accessible and supported their choices. Information was tailored to the individual need. Patient identifiable information was protected. We observed an ODP displaying the theatre list in the room but covering the patient names up, so they were not identifiable. All patients had their own rooms which meant discussions about their care were kept private. Information leaflets were available on the ward for patients and visitors. Staff had produced information boards with topics relevant to their area. For example, on the ward there was a visual display regarding infection prevention and control and how to reduce the risks.

Information needed to deliver effective care and treatment was available to relevant staff in a timely and accessible way. The service used paper records in the form of booklets which contained clear pathways to follow. This meant all patients records were within the same pathway. For example, the pre-operative assessment, ward care and theatre records were all within the booklet. This meant all healthcare professionals could follow the patient pathway clearly. Staff were aware of how to use and store confidential information. All staff had to complete information governance training; 94% of staff had completed this. The hospital submitted data to the Private Healthcare Information Network. They also collected PROMs data for certain surgical procedures, such as hip and knee replacements.

Staff used surveys and questionnaires to gather information to enable service improvement. Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. They could make complaints in various ways, verbally, by telephone and in writing by letter or email.

Staff told us they always tried to address complaints or concerns immediately to see if they could be addressed by the team. Patients were given details on how to make a complaint if the problem could not be resolved. It was easy for patients to give feedback about the service. There was a feedback survey and patients were encouraged to fill this in. Theatre staff told us if a complaint was made when the patient was on the ward regarding theatre, they would speak to the patient and try and rectify any issues.

The hospital had a clear policy for complaints management and staff followed this. There was a monthly governance meeting where complaints were discussed as well as at departmental team meetings. There had been 11 formal complaints within the last 12 months. Managers investigated complaints. Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and patients received feedback from managers after the investigation into their complaint. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. We saw clear actions implemented following the complaints received in the service.

The service offered free NHS care under the Patient Choice government initiative. Patients could either book an appointment through their GP, through the NHS e-referral Service website, NHS e-referral Service line or by calling the Nuffield Health e-referral team. Patients could phone or email the booking team if they wanted to cancel or rearrange their appointment.

People were able to access the service when they needed it and received the right care in line with national standards. Patients mostly were able to have surgery within 2 weeks of it being requested. The service had a weekly theatre utilisation meeting on a Monday afternoon to discuss the theatre cases for the following 3 weeks. This was attended by a representative from the ward, theatre, patient bookings, pre-operative assessment as well as other team members. This ensured all staff were sighted on the upcoming lists, what equipment was required, what tests were required and enabled staffing to be arranged appropriately. Theatres were open from 07:30am to 9pm Monday to Friday. They ran 1 Saturday list and 1 evening list until 9pm. Medical staff told us they faced challenges in assessing notes from neighbouring hospitals. They were working on getting an integrated system in place.

Each theatre list was booked for a timeslot and the staff were allocated alongside this. Staff told us there had been unrest in department with theatre lists overrunning. The manager told us they did not expect staff to stay and at times had to cancel lists if they were unable to. We were told overruns were improving.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patient records were updated after each appointment to ensure any discussions between the patient and staff were recorded and any actions that had been agreed were all logged. Pre-assessment staff ensured appointments were planned to meet the needs of patients.

Staff worked well together as an effective multidisciplinary team throughout the patient journey from the pre-operative assessment to the patient’s discharge. There was input from pharmacists, physiotherapists and doctors to ensure patients were fit for discharge and pain was under control. The preassessment team had recently moved to a new modular unit. The unit had 4 pre assessment rooms and was open from 7.30am to 6pm from Monday to Friday and occasionally on Saturday depending on staffing and appointments needed.

The policies and processes in place within the service ensured patients were treated in line with requirements under legal and human rights. The service met the needs of patients where reasonable adjustments were required. The processes in place ensured patients were not discriminated against and care and treatment was equitable for all patients who were unable to speak up for themselves.