The Droitwich Spa 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

The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. Managers checked to make sure staff followed guidance. Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment. They used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients. Staff worked together as a team to benefit patients and to provide effective care.

This service scored 38 (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.

Staff worked collaboratively with patients when assessing and undertaking procedures. Patients told us they found staff to be knowledgeable and engaged well with them. Patient surveys identified more than 96% of people who responded were satisfied with the service.

Staff worked with national guidance and evidence-based practice to deliver treatment. Staff had access to up-to-date policies and procedures. Leaders monitored staff performance to ensure they were working in line with evidence-based practice. Staff told us they felt they communicated well with patients to understand how best to support patients with their procedures and treat them as individuals.

Systems and processes supported evidence-based care and practice in line with national standards. Managers audited staff compliance against evidence-based practice to identify if learning or development was required. Staff received training on the Accessible Information Standard during their induction training. This was to enable staff to communicate with patients in the best way for the patient or their carer. Staff were made aware of the legislation and the responsibilities to support patients with a disability or sensory loss. Systems and processes supported evidence-based care and practice in line with national standards. Training for staff included the Care Act 2014, the Autism Act 2009, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the Human Rights Act 1998. This was to ensure staff were aware of additional support and measures which must be organised to meet patients’ rights and ensure reasonable adjustments were made. The service would use an interpretator service, including British Sign Language if required, and hearing loops were also available.

Patients told us they received a good level of care at this service as part of their overall care and treatment pathway. There was effective sharing of results with GPs and other refers to ensure diagnoses were not delayed.

Staff worked across multidisciplinary teams to support patients. Staff communicated effectively and peer reviewed work to ensure information was checked and shared in line with evidence-based practice.

We observed staff to work effectively across teams to support people. Staff communicated effectively within the team to manage patient appointments well.

The service had effective systems and processes to support people and ensure information was appropriately shared with others.

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.

Patients we spoke with did not raise any concerns regarding the quality of their diagnostic procedures.

Staff and leaders routinely monitored patients’ experiences and results to identify when improvement was required. Staff and leaders gave us examples where they had used results from audits to drive improvements and promote staff learning.

The service had an identified programme of audits and included infection control, medicines in addition to radiation specific audits to meet IR(ME)R legislation. Compliance for X-ray rejection audits had shown improvement from March 2022 to February 2024. Audit results were shared with the team and used as part of training sessions day to improve staff understanding and improve practice. Other audits included patient identification, clinical evaluation, non-medical exposure, pregnancy enquiry, quality assurance and diagnostic reference audits. Each demonstrated compliance above 95%. The manager completed a ‘reject analysis’ audit monthly which demonstrated a significant improvement from 11.5% rejection in March 2022 to the most recent audit with a rejection rate of 1.6% in February 2024- Rejection is when an X-ray or diagnostic test is undertaken but the results are unsatisfactory for analysis and the test has to be repeated. Audit results were discussed at team sessions and during monthly clinical governance meetings.

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.