• Hospital
  • NHS hospital

George Eliot NHS Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Eliot Way, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 7RF (024) 7635 1351

Provided and run by:
George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust

Report from 26 February 2024 assessment

Ratings

  • Overall

    Good

  • Safe

    Good

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Good

Our view of the service

Critical care provides care for level 2 patients (those considered as requiring high dependency care) and level 3 patients (those who require intensive therapy). The service also provides a critical care outreach team (CCOT) who supports patients that may be deteriorating whilst admitted within the ward areas. The CCOT provide a service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The service also has 24 hour presence of consultants and registrars. During our assessment, we spoke with 27 members of staff of all roles and responsibilities, spoke with 1 patient and reviewed 4 patient records. During this assessment we found the service remained good in all 5 key questions. Safety was a priority for everyone and leaders embedded a culture of openness. Patients were safe and protected from abuse, avoidable harm and infection. Leaders ensured there were enough, skilled staff to provide care and treatment for patients in safe environments. Patients had their best possible outcomes. Their needs were assessed and their treatment reflected their needs. Staff worked in harmony and patients were at the centre of their care. Patients were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff respected patients privacy and dignity and took into account patients wishes and choices. Patients and the communities the service served was at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. Patients had access to the care and treatment they required and accessed it in ways which met their personal circumstances. There was an inclusive and positive culture which was also focused on continuous learning and improvement. Leaders were proactive and approachable and there was clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability and good governance. However: Compliance was low for key training requirements including life support and safeguarding level 3. We found staff did not always adhere to correct process when completing the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment plans.

People's experience of this service

Due to the nature of the service, we were only able to speak with 1 patient. However, we reviewed feedback given to the service through their own audits and the friends and family test and found patients were happy with the care and treatment they received. Our observations of care and treatment and interactions with the families of patients who were critically unwell supported the views of patients collected through feedback processes.