New Hall Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. Leaders utilised a variety of systems to inform them of the effectiveness of care given and ensured staff were updated of emerging changes. Policies and procedures were informed by national guidance and good practice standards with a comprehensive auditing program supporting performance tracking.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People felt their expectations and needs were considered during decision-making. People told us staff provided nutrition and hydration that matched their needs.

Staff could explain how clinical governance impacted on delivery of evidence-based care and received updates in a variety of formats. They felt empowered to challenge variations in practice without this becoming confrontational. Leaders told us they were assured safe and effective care was being delivered as they undertook peer reviews with external stakeholders, benchmarking exercises and participated in local and national audits. They were confident staff embodied the organisational values and were passionate about ensuring they were kept updated of any emerging changes.

Policies reflected national guidance and good practice standards, with consideration to NICE, Department of Health and surgical specialty specific guidelines. The service was supported by regular organisational updates on initiatives and alerts via national bulletins. This included quarterly reviews of NICE guidance updates against current practice. Leaders reviewed patient questionnaires on quality of care, for the procedures most frequently undertaken, such as hip, knee and cataract surgery. This was used to monitor quality of care, measure performance and measure effectiveness of changes implemented. The service implemented improvement measures such as improving consistency of communications for post-operative phone calls to relatives, managing expectations for length of stay and increasing staffing on the ward at night to support patient comfort needs. The service submitted data to the appropriate range of mandatory national audits. They had been awarded quality data provider status in recognition of the quality of data submitted to the National Joint Registry. There was a comprehensive auditing programme scheduled with increased auditing over the next financial year. The content of the specific audits, such as surgical site infection or infection prevention and control were aligned to measurable outcomes of NICE guidance. Where there was non-compliance or inconsistency raised by audit data, learning was implemented, and outcomes monitored. Audit outcomes were reviewed at relevant clinical governance committees by leaders and key stakeholders.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.