22 October to 28 November 2019
During a routine inspection
Our rating of services stayed the same. We rated it them as good because:
- The hospital 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 managed safety well. The hospital controlled infection risk well. Orthopaedic surgical infection site rates for the hospital were one of the lowest within the NHS. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The hospital 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 services 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 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 hospital 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 services 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 felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The hospital engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.
However
- In surgery, patient records were not always secured securely and could be accessed by unauthorised persons in pre-operative assessment and ward areas.
- In surgery, the design, use and maintenance of facilities, premises and equipment did not always reduce the risks to patients to keep them safe. The older theatre area was in poor condition and was affected by leaks and flooding at times of heavy rainfall. There were outstanding repairs at the time of our inspection such as the main theatre access door magnetic lock and theatre two door was broken.
- In surgery, the service did not always record environmental risks it had identified and the actions to mitigate the risks in a timely manner.