Luton and Dunstable Hospital

Updated 5 July 2024

Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (BHFT) formed as a new entity in April 2020 as a result of a merger of Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Bedford Hospitals NHS Trust. Both sites provide maternity services.

Bedfordshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust provides maternity and midwifery services at Luton and Dunstable Hospital. The hospital has an eleven-bedded consultant-led maternity unit as well as a four-bedded midwifery-led birthing unit (MLBU) with birthing pool. There is an antenatal clinic in the hospital as well as an early pregnancy unit and a day assessment unit (DAU). Between January 2023 and December 2023 there were 5409 women and birthing people who delivered at Luton and Dunstable Hospital.

We spoke with 48 members of staff at all levels of the organisation across various specialities and including administrative staff, consultants, doctors, healthcare assistants, midwives, nurses, pharmacy staff and senior leaders. We also contacted the Maternity and Neonatal Voices Partnership and Healthwatch.

We also spoke with 5 women and birthing people and 2 birthing partners. We observed care and reviewed 5 sets of care records. We also looked at a wide range of documents including policies, standard operating procedures, meeting minutes, action plans, risk assessments, training records and audit results.

You can find further information about how we carry out our inspections on our website: https://www.cqc.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-do-our-job/what-we-do-inspection.

Our rating of this location went down. We rated it as inadequate because:

• The service did not always have enough staff to care for women and keep them safe.
• Staff did not always check emergency equipment in line with policy to ensure this was ready, safe and fit for purpose.
• Staff did not always feel respected, supported and valued. The service did not effectively manage cultural issues raised by staff
• There was a lack of learning from incidents. The incidents investigation backlog impacted on risk management. Action plans could not always be translated to learning as they were not embedded, therefore there was a risk of recurrence of incidents. There was a backlog of incidents which had not been reviewed, investigated and action plans had not been developed to mitigate risks of recurrence.
• Infection risk was not managed consistently
• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment did not always adhere to safety standards. Staff did not always manage clinical waste well.
• Leaders did not always understand and manage the priorities and issues the service faced. Staff did not always understand the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.

However;

• Staff treated women with compassion and kindness.
• Staff were responsive and worked hard, with limited resources, to meet the needs of women and their families.
• The service engaged with the local community and local Maternity and Neonatal Voices Partnership.

Updated 16 December 2022

Updated 7 December 2018

The service was last inspected in January 2016 when the service was rated as outstanding for effective and well-led and good for safe, caring and responsive.

Our rating of this service went down. We rated it as good because:

• Leaders at all levels of children’s services demonstrated high levels of experience, capacity and capability needed to deliver excellent and sustainable care. Leaders led their service and supported the wider development of services for children across the whole hospital.
• Children’s services had a strategy and supporting objectives and plans that were innovative while remaining achievable. There was a systematic and integrated approach to monitoring, reviewing and providing evidence of progress against the strategy and plans.
• Leaders had an inspiring shared purpose and strived to deliver and motivate staff to succeed. There were high levels of satisfaction across all staff groups and staff were proud to speak up and raise concerns at all levels of the children’s service.
• Governance arrangements were proactively reviewed and reflected best practice. The service used a systematic approach to continually improve the quality of its services and safeguarding high standards by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care would flourish.
• There was a holistic approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment to children and young people in the children’s service. The service used safe and innovative approaches based on evidence based techniques to support the delivery of high quality care.
• Staff were proactively supported and encouraged to acquire new skills and use their transferrable skills and share best practice. Children’s services recognised that the continuing development of its staff was integral to ensuring high-quality care.
• Children’s services were committed to working collaboratively and had found innovative ways to deliver more joined up care. There was a holistic approach to planning young people’s transition to adult services which was done at the earliest possible stage.
• Staff cared for patients with compassion and feedback from patients confirmed staff treated them well and with kindness. Parents and carers told us they were very happy with the care and support they received and feedback was overwhelmingly positive throughout the inspection.
• Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and provided feedback to staff. Lessons were learnt as a result of incidents and actions monitored. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients honest information and suitable support.
• The service had sufficient nursing staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience. Suitable measures were in place through the appropriate use of bank and agency staff known to the service who kept people safe from avoidable harm and abuse and provided the right care and treatment.
• The trust’s neonatal critical care bed occupancy rate was higher than the England average in the period May 2017 to April 2018. Data in the last three months had shown the trust was below the 80% trust target.

However:

• There were inconsistencies in recording of pain scores in paediatrics.
• Medical staff were not meeting the trust standard of 80% for the mandatory training modules they were eligible for.
• Medical staff were not meeting the 80% target for safeguarding adults training Levels 1 and 2.
• There were high ambient temperatures at the time of inspection which meant that some medicines were not kept at the correct temperatures.

Updated 7 December 2018

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The clinical environment, premises and equipment were well maintained and adapted where possible to meet the needs of the patient.
• Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and worked collaboratively to protect patients from abuse.
• There were appropriate systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were kept safe through continual monitoring. The service planned for emergencies and ensured that all staff knew their roles and responsibilities.
• Staff ensured that patient’s records accurately reflected treatment plans and assessments.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well recognising types of incidents and learnt from investigations.
• The service monitored the effectiveness of the care and treatment provided against national standards and guidance. Using audit data to compare to peers and identify areas for improvement. Staff were made aware of findings and involved with learning.
• Patients were provided with enough food and drink to meet their needs and improve their health.
• Staff were supported to develop their skills and knowledge through competencies and appraisals.
• The service ensured that individuals needs were met when planning and implementing care and treatment.
• Patients were able to access the service when they needed to. Referrals were timely and ITU and HDU teams were responsive to the needs of patients.
• The service managed complaints effectively, considering concerns raised and ensuring that staff learnt from concerns raised.
• Critical Care leaders were visible and offered support and advice where necessary. Nurses in charge of units were good role models.
• There was a positive culture across both ITU and HDU. Staff felt supported and valued and there was a sense of common purpose based on shared values. Teams worked collaboratively.
• Although governance was managed across two divisions, there was a systematic approach to identifying risks and quality of care. Trends were monitored by clinical and governance teams and actions taken to address any areas of concern.
• The service engaged and collaborated with partner organisations effectively using peer reviews and networks to improve practice locally.

However:

• Medical staff’s mandatory training compliance was below the trust target of 80%.
• Medical staff did not always wash their hands before or after the point of care.
• The supernumerary nurse on HDU and ITU were used to ensure that nurse patient ratios were maintained. This was against national guidance.
• The ITU consultants had additional responsibility for the paediatric emergency bleep, which meant that they were not always available to immediately attend ITU when called. This was against national guidance.
• High ambient temperatures at the time of inspection meant that some medicines were not always kept at the correct temperatures.
• There were a number of out of hour transfers between ITU and HDU and HDU and main wards. These were not always in response to clinical activity.
• The HDU and ITU did not provide adequate washing facilities for male and female patients due to restrictions of the clinical environment.
• Staff moves and perceived lack of support affected job satisfaction within ITU.

Updated 3 June 2016

End of life services were rated as good overall.

Patients and relatives all spoke positively about end of life care. Staff provided compassionate care for patients. Services were very responsive to patients’ individual needs and those of their families and next of kin.

There were arrangements to minimise risks to patients with measures in place to safeguard adults from abuse, prevent falls, malnutrition and pressure ulcers and, the early identification of a deteriorating patient through the use of an early warning system.

End of life care followed national guidance and the trust participated in national audits. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.

The results of the 2013/14 National Care of the Dying Audit of Hospitals (NCDAH) highlighted a number of areas for improvement. The hospital had since made some progress on the implementation of the action plan.

Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms we inspected were appropriately completed.

Patients received good information regarding their treatment and care. The service took account of individual needs and wishes and their cultural and spiritual needs. The bereavement support staff provided good support to relatives after the death of a patient. The hospital had a rapid discharge service for discharge to a preferred place of care. The trust had not yet completed an audit of patients achieving their preferred place of dying.

There was an improvement plan in place for end of life care that was overseen by a strategy steering group. There had been a number of changes put into place in the previous twelve months. These included a new personalised care framework, to replace the discontinued Liverpool Care Pathway, improved rapid discharge processes and the appointment of an end of life care specialist nurse to roll out the new documentation and provide training.

There was evidence of clear leadership in both the palliative care team and at board level. The trust had a clear vision and strategy for end of life care services and participated in regional and locality groups in relation to strategic planning and implementation.

However we found that:

Not all advance care plans patients had made in the community had been reviewed by the hospital’s SPCT to ensure they were valid, current and that care and treatment provided was still meeting patients’ expressed wishes.

The trust had not completed an audit of patients achieving their preferred place of dying. This meant, because it was not identified, this information could not be used to improve or develop services. However, this information was collected by the community team and shared with the trust palliative care team. Access for the trust palliative care CNS team to view PPD (preferred place of death) on the community system had been provided following our inspection.

The trust did not collect information of the percentage of patients that had achieved discharge to their preferred place within 24 hours. Without this information they were unable to monitor if they were meeting patients’ wishes and how they could make improvements.  However, this information was collected by the community team and shared with the trust palliative care team.  Access for the trust palliative care CNS team to view PPD (preferred place of death) on the community system had been provided following our inspection.

Updated 5 July 2024

Updated 3 June 2016

Overall, we rated the service as outstanding.

Diagnostic services had established a seven day working programme with flexibility of services to provide timely diagnostic procedures for patients. Appointments for both diagnostic services and clinic appointments were flexed according to demands of the service and to meet the individual needs of the patients.

The division were working towards increasing outpatient clinics to include evenings and weekends on a routine basis and offered flexibility according to patient condition and any demands on work/life balance.

The trust used electronic patient records which provided easy access to results reporting and details of previous contacts with the organisation. This meant that clinicians were well informed of the patients’ conditions and could always see the patients with their records available.

The division had a proactive approach to developing and training staff. They identified areas where recruitment was difficult and developed their own staff into these roles. This made staff feel valued and invested in, which enhanced retention of posts.

Nurse staffing levels were appropriate with minimal vacancies and staffing levels met patient needs at the time of the inspection. Staff in all departments were aware of the actions they should take in the case of a major incident

Patients’ needs were assessed and their care and treatment was delivered following local and national guidance for best practice. Staff had information they needed before providing care and treatment but in a minority of cases, records were not always available in time for clinics.

Staff were suitably qualified and skilled to carry out their roles effectively and in line with best practice. Staff felt supported to deliver care and treatment to an appropriate standard, including having relevant training and appraisal. Consent was obtained before care and treatment was given.

During the inspection, we saw and were told by patients, that the staff working in outpatient and diagnostic imaging departments were kind, caring and compassionate at every stage of their treatment. Patients we spoke with during our inspection were positive about the way they were treated.

Waiting times for diagnostic procedures was lower than England average and the trust consistently met the referral to treatment standards over time.

There were systems to ensure that services were able to meet individual needs, for example, for people living with dementia. There were also systems to record concerns and complaints raised within the department, review these and take action to improve patients’ experience.

Staff were familiar with the trust wide vision and values and felt part of the trust as a whole. Outpatient staff told us that they felt supported by their immediate line managers and that the senior management team were visible within the department.

There were effective systems for identifying and managing the risks associated with outpatient appointments at the team, directorate and organisational levels.

Regular governance meetings were held and staff were updated and involved in the outcomes of these meetings. There was a strong culture of team working across the areas we visited.

Updated 7 December 2018

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and knew how to apply it.
• The service controlled infection risk well. Staff kept themselves, equipment and the premises clean. They used control measures to prevent the spread of infection.
• Staff assessed risks to patients and monitored their safety, so they were supported to stay safe. Assessments were in place to alert staff when a patient’s condition deteriorated.
• Staff kept appropriate records of patients’ care and treatment.
• The service prescribed, gave, and recorded most medicines well. Patients generally received the right medication at the right dose at the right time.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse and to provide the right care and treatment.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of this effectiveness. They assessed staff compliance with guidance and identified areas for improvement.
• Staff gave patients enough food and drink to meet their needs and improve their health. They used special feeding and hydration techniques when necessary. The service made dietary adjustments for patients for religious, cultural, personal choice or medical reasons when required.
• The service managed patients’ pain effectively and provided or offered pain relief regularly.
• The service monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and consistently used the findings to improve them.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them, when required, to provide support and monitor the effectiveness of the service.
• Staff received an annual appraisal which they told us was constructive and provided a formal opportunity to review their progress and identify further training needs.
• Staff supported patients to manage their own health, care and well-being and to maximise their independence following surgery and as appropriate for individuals.
• Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness.
• Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress.
• Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.
• The service understood the different requirements of the local people it served by ensuring that it actioned the needs of local people through the planning, design and delivery of services.
• Services were planned to take into account the individual needs of patients
• Patients could access the service when they needed it.
• The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, which were shared with all staff.
• The service had managers at all levels with the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.
• The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and workable plans to turn it into action developed with involvement from staff, patients, and key groups representing the local community.
• Managers across the trust promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.
• The trust used a systematic approach to continually improving the quality of its services and safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care would flourish.
• The trust had effective systems for identifying risks, planning to eliminate or reduce them, and coping with both the expected and unexpected.
• The service collected, analysed, managed and used most information well to support all its activities, using secure electronic systems with security safeguards.
• The service engaged well with patients, the public and local organisation to plan and manage appropriate services, and collaborated with partner organisations effectively.
• The service was committed to improving services by learning from when things go well and when they go wrong, promoting training, research and innovation.

However:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff but did not always make sure everyone completed it.
• Compliance rates for level three safeguarding training was below the trust target.
• Not all patient records were kept in locked trolleys to maintain confidentiality.
• Waiting times from referral to treatment were longer than the England average

Updated 16 December 2022