The Park Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

The service has a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty, in which concerns about safety are listened to, safety events are investigated and reported thoroughly, and lessons are learned to continually identify and embed good practices. The service worked with people and partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety is managed, monitored and assured. The service ensured continuity of care, including when people move between different services. The service worked with people to understand what being safe means. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically so that care meets their needs in a way that is safe and supportive and enables them to do the things that matter to them. The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure that the equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced people, who receive effective support, supervision and development. They worked together effectively to provide safe care that meets people’s individual needs.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they knew how to raise complaints if they needed to.

Staff demonstrated an understanding the incident reporting process . Staff gave examples of following the services incident reporting procedure and could demonstrate learning from incidents that had taken place in areas we inspected. Staff told us they were well supported by the leadership team when actioning and implementing learning following on from incidents.

The service had appropriate corporate policies and local procedures to guide staff. Managers shared learning with their staff about incidents that happened elsewhere at the hospital and across the organisation, through team meetings and newsletters. Staff reviewed the incidents and ensured that national guidance had been followed. Staff identified and shared learning outcomes from incidents. They ensured any required actions were implemented to promote effective learning and prevent similar incidents happening again. Senior staff shared safety alerts throughout the surgical service and ensured actions were implemented in line with national guidance. The service had an appropriate FTSU process and a national guardian. However, the information shared with us identified that staff were perhaps unsure of how to use the policy and make use of the guardian.

Staff told us that processes were followed, these included; All patient receive a GP follow up letter. In 90% of patients wound checks and follow ups are done by GPs. All on site follow up appointments are arranged on discharge (physio and OPD). All surgical patients get a 48 hour post discharge call and can return if needed. There is a 48 hour phone call for all patients who have had surgery.

Have a regular stakeholder meetings (ICB). The service received no negative feedback from local NHS Trusts.

All patient receive a GP follow up letter. In 90% of patients wound checks and follow ups are done by GPs. All on site follow up appointments are arranged on discharge (physio and OPD). All surgical patients get a 48 hour post discharge call and can return if needed. There is a 48 hour phone call for all patients who have had surgery.

Patients told us they felt safe throughout their journey through the service.

Staff received training specific for their role on how to recognise and report abuse. Staff in all areas had access to safeguarding information about how to refer and escalate concerns. Staff escalated safeguarding concerns to the department manager. Staff could give examples of how to protect patients from harassment and discrimination, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Safeguarding adults level 3 training had been introduced for staff in all clinical areas in line with national guidance. Staff we spoke with had completed the training and knew where to access support from a level 4 trained manager if required. Staff were aware of the policy for managing bullying and harassment and were able to give examples of positive outcomes from the process.

Staff had completed safeguarding training in line with national guidance. Staff were trained in safeguarding level 2 for both adults and children and young people safeguarding as a minimum. We reviewed evidence that showed how the bullying and harassment policy had been implemented following concerns raised. The documentation followed the corporate policy. It was clear and concise, and concerns were escalated appropriately as detailed within Circle processes.

Patients told us they were involved in managing their risks and had discussions throughout their journey throughout the Hospital.

Staff told us they had regular discussions with patients about managing risks throughout the surgical process, including risks such as falls post surgery and a comprehensive risk assessment on admissions.

In all the records we reviewed the sections were complete, these included the sections ‘Patient identifiers on every page’, ‘patient has a centred individualised assessment of their care needs and care plans’, ‘patient has the appropriate risk assessments’, ‘patient specific information recorded’ and ‘is their evidence that patients were involved in planning their care’.

All patients felt the environment was safe.

The service had a clear process for managing equipment which all staff were aware of.

The environment was clean and well maintained. All equipment we checked was clean, well maintained and up to date. Theatres are clean and well-lit and in a good state. Medicines and COSHH products were stored correctly.

The service had a clear environment and equipment audit schedule. Staff maintained cleaning schedules for theatres. Theatre sterilisation and waste management processes were appropriate. Crash trolleys were available and maintained appropriately.

All patients told us they felt staffing was appropriate and staff responded quickly to call bells.

Staff told us the service was never short staffed and shifts were covered where needed. Staff told us they did regular mandatory training.

We saw there were enough staff to provide support to people safely. We saw staff were suitably trained to complete their roles. Staff used their training to respond effectively to people’s needs. We saw wards and theatres were appropriately staffed on the day of inspection. Staffed in recommended AFPP/ANGBI/RCN guidelines – 5 practitioners in theatre. 1x surgical first assistant. Staff we spoke with assured us there was no dual role of SFA and scrub nurse.

There were clear processes to ensure there were enough staff. Staff had received suitable training to do their role. The management team ensured there was always suitably skilled staff working. Once staff were trained, there were clear ongoing processes to assess their competency. If needed, further support and training was then given to improve staff skills. If staff were not providing the expected level of care, there were clear processes to monitor and improve their performance. Safe recruitment processes were followed. For example, previous employers were contacted to give references on the staff member. Staff had also had regular Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. These check the police database for convictions or warnings that may impact the staff members safety to work with people. There were no gaps that are visible in the rotas demonstrating that both wards were staff to establishment levels.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.