Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice

Updated 2 December 2022

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services which have had a recent direct monitoring approach (DMA) assessment, that resulted in a decision of ‘no further regulatory action’. This inspection was carried out to seek assurance about this decision and to identify learning about the DMA process.

Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice is an independent service operated by a charitable company. The hospice provided personalised care to improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people living with a life-limiting or terminal illness who reside in either London borough.

The hospice had a 13-bedded inpatient ward as well as a community service, along with rehabilitation, care home support and a counselling service. In addition, the hospice was contracted to provide hospital-based palliative care support to an NHS hospital located in Greenwich.

The charity cares for around 3,000 people annually and palliative or end of life services are provided free of charge to people living in the 2 boroughs. The hospice receives around a third of its funding from the NHS and employs around 200 staff supported by over 450 volunteers.

We use the term ‘selected volunteers’ in this report to describe patient-facing volunteers who performed roles within the hospice under direct supervision of staff members. These included members of the young ward volunteers scheme, rehabilitation volunteers and the compassionate neighbours project. Other voluntary roles included administration support and fundraising.

Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice has a registered manager in post and is registered with the CQC to provide the following regulated activities:

• Treatment of Disease, Disorder and Injury
• Diagnostic and Screening Procedures

Updated 2 December 2022

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice using our comprehensive methodology on 20 and 21 September 2022. The service was last inspected in 2016, using a different methodology. On this occasion we rated it as good overall, because it was good for safe, effective, caring and responsive and outstanding for well led:

• The service had enough staff and volunteers to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff and selected volunteers had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well.
• The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good treatment records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Senior managers collected safety information from multiple locations and used it to improve the service.
• Staff and selected volunteers provided excellent care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers and trustees monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff and volunteers alike were competent. Staff and volunteers worked very well together for the benefit of patients and supported them as well as their loved ones when making decisions about their care.
• The service took account of patients’ individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
• Leaders ran services very well using reliable information systems and supported staff and volunteers to develop their skills.
• Trustees, staff at all levels and volunteers understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work or voluntary duties. All we spoke with felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care and were clear about their roles and accountabilities.
• The service engaged well with patients and other stakeholders to plan and manage services and trustees, staff and volunteers were highly committed to improving services proactively.

Updated 2 December 2022

Since our last inpection of this service, we have changed the methodology we use.

We rated this service as good overall, because it was safe, effective, caring, and responsive. We rated well led as outstanding.