Archived: DHU 111 - Fosse House Call Centre

A summary of CQC findings on urgent and emergency care services

in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

Urgent and emergency care services across England have been and continue to be under sustained pressure. In response, CQC is undertaking a series of coordinated inspections, monitoring calls and analysis of data to identify how services in a local area work together to ensure patients receive safe, effective and timely care. We have summarised our findings for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland below:

Provision of urgent and emergency care in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland was supported by services, stakeholders, commissioners and the local authority.

We spoke with staff in services across primary care, integrated urgent care, acute care, mental health services, ambulance services and adult social care. Staff had worked very hard under sustained pressure across health and social care services.

People reported difficulties when trying to see or speak to their GP. Some GP practices had invested in new technology to improve telephone access. Staff working in GP practices signposted patients to extended and out- of- hours services to prevent people attending emergency department whenever possible.

Staff working in urgent care reported an increase in demand and an increase in acuity of patients presenting to their services. Some staff reported frustrations in relation to urgent care pathways; staff working in advanced clinical practice were not always empowered to make referrals into alternative pathways.

Staff working in urgent care services reported challenges due to the volume of pilots focused on admissions avoidance running across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Many pilots ran for relatively short periods of time and were often impacted by staffing issues. This made it difficult to maintain oversight of pathways available to avoid acute services. However, some pilots had proved successful and prevented ambulance responses and hospital admissions.

Staff working across urgent and emergency care services raised concerns about their skills set. Some ambulance staff feared the shift from dealing with multiple emergencies to providing longer term care for one patient in a shift, in combination with having less time for training, impacted on their competency. Some staff in urgent care services felt they needed additional training to meet the needs of patients presenting with higher acuity.

Patients seeking advice from NHS111 in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland experienced some delays getting through to the service, when compared against national targets. However, at the time of our inspection, performance was better than England averages for key indicators including the percentage of calls answered within 60 seconds, and call abandonment rates. Staffing continued to be a challenge across NHS111, however recruitment was on-going.

Out- of- hours care had been challenging throughout the pandemic as staff were redeployed to other key services, this had particularly impacted on home visiting services.

The emergency department serving Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is within a large, city centre hospital and poor patient flow across health and social care has further increased the significant pressure on the emergency department. This pressure has resulted in long delays in care and treatment. Long delays in ambulance handovers have, in turn, resulted in a high number of hours lost to the ambulance service whilst their crews wait outside hospital. This causes further delays in responding to 999 calls to patients in the community with serious conditions.

Ambulance crews reported an increase in the volume of patients calling 999 who told them they had been unable to see their GP and crews often signposted patients back into primary care.

We found psychiatric liaison services at the city centre hospital were well run and designed to meet people’s needs. Staff demonstrated effective partnership working with a person-centred approach and good use of alternative pathways to avoid admission into acute or social care services.

We found that staff working across specialisms in acute services did not always provide sufficient in-reach into the emergency department to improve patient flow and the care received. This was particularly apparent at night. Beds were not allocated to patients until they had been accepted by specialists, this meant some patients spent additional time waiting in ED. During our inspection, between 45 and 60 beds were needed for new patients waiting in ED. Some patient transfers to other hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland stopped at 8pm, this restricted patient flow out of the city centre hospital.

Some staff reported frustrations with escalation processes across health and social care in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. At times when the city centre hospital and the ambulance service was under significant pressure, staff felt there was a lack of diverts available to other sites or services and that system partners were slow to respond. There was a rapid ambulance handover process when services were in escalation; however, staff reported these were not effective.

There was a high number of patients in hospital who were medically fit for discharge but remained in acute services. System stakeholders worked together to consider discharge pathways; however, at the time of our inspections the number of patients awaiting discharge remained very high. Delays were still commonplace and capacity in community and social care services impacted on the ability of staff to safely discharge patients. Communication about discharge and discharge processes were impacting on the quality of transfers of care to social care services.

People living in social care setting experienced long delays, particularly when accessing 999 services. Although advice was provided, this had resulted in significant waits and poor outcome, especially for people who had fallen and remained on the floor. Staff working in social care services told us they had limited access to support and advice and relied on GPs, 111 or 999.

System wide collaboration, accountability and risk sharing needs to improve to alleviate pressure on key services in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

We carried out an announced, focused inspection of DHU 111 Fosse House Call Centre on 31 March and 5 April 2022.

We are mindful of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

This focused inspection was carried out using our Pressure Resilience methodology which meant that we did not use all the key lines of enquiry and the report has not been rated.

The service was last inspected in March 2019 when it was rated as Outstanding.

This inspection of DHU 111 Fosse House Call Centre formed part of a system review of urgent and emergency care provision in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. The findings of this review relate to the overall system of care provision in this area and are not all specific to this provider alone. The following details the findings of this system wide review:

At this inspection we found:

• The service had good systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the service learned from them and improved their processes.
• The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the service it provided. It ensured that advice was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients were able to access advice from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
• Despite acute workforce pressures that had seen many members of staff absent through sickness, the provider had continued to consistently perform highly in respect of call management and had throughout the pandemic period bettered the performance of other NHS111 providers across England. Call abandonment rates were below the pre-pandemic target of 3% which had been raised to 6% during the pandemic period. The time taken to answer calls was significantly below the national average over a protracted period of time and in February 2022 was 31 seconds compared to the national average of 267 seconds.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care