Musgrove Park Hospital

Updated 10 May 2024

Pages 1 to 3 of this report relate to the hospital and the ratings of that location, from page 4 the ratings and information relate to maternity services based at Musgrove Park Hospital.

We inspected the maternity service at Musgrove Park Hospital as part of our national maternity inspection programme. The programme aims to give an up-to-date view of hospital maternity care across the country and help us understand what is working well to support learning and improvement at a local and national level.

Musgrove Park Hospital provides maternity services to the population of Taunton and Somerset.

Maternity services included a Triage Ward with 4 beds and a side room; Antenatal Ward (Willow Ward) which included 4 induction of labour beds, 6 antenatal beds and 1 side room with en-suite facility; a midwifery led alongside birthing centre (Bracken Birth Centre) which included 2 pool rooms with en-suite facilities and 6 postnatal beds; a Postnatal Ward (Fern Ward) which had 11 beds across 2 bays, 2 transitional care beds in a shared bay and accommodation for up to 5 parents whose babies were on special care. There was a labour ward with 7 birthing rooms, 1 of which had a birthing pool and a procedure room; 2 recovery beds and 1 theatre. In the last year approximately 3000 babies were born at Musgrove Park Hospital.

We will publish a report of our overall findings when we have completed the national inspection programme.

We carried out a short notice announced focused inspection of the maternity service, looking only at the safe and well-led key questions.

Our rating of this hospital went down. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Our rating of Inadequate for maternity services changed the ratings for the hospital overall. We rated maternity services as inadequate in both safe and well-led.

We also inspected 2 other maternity services run by Somerset NHS Foundation Trust. Our reports are here:

• Yeovil District Hospital - https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/RH5O4

• Bridgwater Community Hospital - https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/RH5K6
  How we carried out the inspection

We provided the service with 2 working days’ notice of our inspection.

We visited triage, labour ward, the antenatal and postnatal wards, transitional care, and the Bracken Birth Centre.

We spoke with 8 doctors, 10 midwives, 2 support workers, 7 women and birthing people and their birthing partners and/or relatives. We received 12 responses to our give feedback on care posters which were in place during the inspection.

We reviewed 7 patient care records and 9 medicines records.

Following our onsite inspection, we spoke with senior leaders within the service; we also looked at a wide range of documents including standard operating procedures, guidelines, meeting minutes, risk assessments, recent reported incidents as well as audits and action plans. We then used this information to form our judgements.

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.

Updated 21 November 2013

The A&E department provided effective care and staff were caring and responsive. Most patients were seen and treated within the national waiting time limit of four hours and plans were put in place for discharge or transfers for further care and treatment. However, there were not always enough senior doctors present at night and weekends. Children were seen by appropriate child care specialists but there were concerns that not enough staff in the A&E department had up-to-date qualifications in emergency child care.

Updated 24 March 2020

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

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and mostly managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients most, acted on them and kept good care records most of the time. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff consistently treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Nurse staffing levels in the four-bed high dependency respiratory area did not always meet the trust policy, specifically at night, although a business case had been submitted to address this.
• Although this had improved since our last inspection, when this was an area of concern, some emergency equipment was still not consistently checked on a daily basis in all areas.
• Staff were not compliant with the target for updating some mandatory training modules.
• The service was not meeting the NHS constitutional standards for treating patients on time in a number of specialties and over a number of years. This was not improving.

Updated 24 March 2020

• The service had enough staff to care for children and young people and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect children and young people from abuse, and managed safety well. Staff assessed risks to children and young people, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided care and treatment, gave children and young people enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of children and young people, advised them and their families on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff consistently treated children and young people with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to children and young people, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of children and young people’s individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of children and young people receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with children, young people and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• The children’s unit and the neonatal unit were situated within ageing buildings and the management and maintenance of the environments were complex and challenging.
• Although the units and most clinical areas were seen to be visibly clean, well-organised and tidy some areas were showing signs of age, wear and tear, making them harder to keep clean.
• Not all records were stored securely. Although locks were on order, some records were held in unlocked ward cupboards.
• The provision of care and treatment to children and young people with mental health illnesses had at times impacted upon others on the ward.

Updated 24 March 2020

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff mostly had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service mostly controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff consistently treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• There were concerns surrounding the environment and equipment. The critical care unit was situated within ageing buildings so the environment was complex to manage. There was unrestricted access to the unit (although this was resolved shortly after our inspection). There was unrestricted access to some equipment cupboards where locks had been damaged.

Updated 5 December 2017

A summary of this service appears in the Overall summary.

Updated 10 May 2024

Updated 5 December 2017

A summary of this service appears in the Overall summary.

Updated 5 December 2017

Updated 5 December 2017