• Hospital
  • NHS hospital

Charing Cross Hospital

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London, W6 8RF (020) 3311 3311

Provided and run by:
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

All Inspections

26th February to 28th February 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our rating of services stayed the same. We rated it them as requires improvement because:

  • The hospital ratings for safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led remained the same.
  • We inspected Critical care this inspection in March 2019 to check if improvements had been made. Our rating of the service went up. We rated it as good because safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led were good. The ratings for safe, effective, responsive and well-led all went up, and the rating for caring stayed the same.
  • We inspected Urgent and emergency care in November 2017 to check if improvements had been made. Our rating of the service went down. We rated it as requires improvement because safe, effective, responsive and well-led required improvement, and caring was good. The rating for safe, responsive and well-led went down, and the ratings for each of the other key questions remained the same.
  • We inspected Surgery during in November 2017 to check if improvements had been made. Our rating of the service stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because safe and responsive required improvement, and effective, caring and well-led were good. The rating for well-led improved, and the ratings for each of the other key questions remained the same.
  • We inspected the Medical care (including older people’s care) service in October 2017 because we had concerns about the quality of the service. Our rating of the service improved. We rated it as good because safe and responsive required improvement; well-led was good, and caring and effective were outstanding. The ratings for effective, caring and well-led improved, and the ratings for each of the other key questions remained the same.
  • We inspected the Outpatients and diagnostic imaging service in May 2017 to check if improvements had been made. Our rating of the service improved. We rated it as requires improvement because safe, responsive and well-led required improvement, and caring was good. The ratings for responsive and well-led improved; the rating for safe went down. We did not rate effective.

8 and 9 July 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Hammersmith & Fulham Centres for Health on 8 and 9 July 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • There were systems in place to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from abuse and staff we spoke with knew how to identify and report safeguarding concerns.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and systems were in place for recording, reporting and sharing learning from significant events.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
  • There was a programme of quality improvement including clinical audit which had a positive impact on quality of care and outcomes for patients.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care.
  • Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • The service took complaints and concerns seriously to improve the quality of care.
  • Leaders demonstrated they had the capacity and skills to deliver high-quality, sustainable care.
  • The provider engaged with patients and staff to improve the service.
  • The provider was aware of the duty of candour and examples we reviewed showed the service complied with these requirements.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Consider the infection control lead undertaking enhanced training to support them in this extended role.
  • Nominate a deputy fire marshal at both sites to ensure there is an appropriately trained member of staff available at all times.
  • Continue to monitor the prescribing of broad spectrum antibiotics in line with guidance.
  • Continue to monitor patient outcomes in relation to childhood immunisation and cervical screening programme.
  • Consider implementing a system to record verbal complaints to ensure all opportunities to learn from feedback was captured.
  • Review staff understanding of the term duty of candour and whistleblowing.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

7th November

During a routine inspection

Our rating of services stayed the same. We rated it them as requires improvement because:

  • The hospital improved its rating of effective since the last inspection, but the ratings for each of the other key questions remained the same.
  • We inspected Urgent and emergency care during this inspection to check if improvements had been made. Our rating of the service went down. We rated it as requires improvement because safe, effective, responsive and well-led required improvement, and caring was good. The rating for safe, responsive and well-led went down, and the ratings for each of the other key questions remained the same.
  • We inspected Surgery during this inspection to check if improvements had been made. Our rating of the service stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because safe and responsive required improvement, and effective, caring and well-led were good. The rating for well-led improved and the ratings for each of the other key questions remained the same.
  • We inspected the Medical care (including older people’s care) service in October 2017 because we had concerns about the quality of the service. Our rating of the service improved. We rated it as good because safe and responsive required improvement; well-led was good, and caring and effective were outstanding. The ratings for effective, caring and well-led improved and the ratings for each of the other key questions remained the same.
  • We inspected the Outpatients and diagnostic imaging service in May 2017 to check if improvements had been made. Our rating of the service improved. We rated it as requires improvement because safe, responsive and well-led were required improvement, and caring was good. The ratings for responsive and well-led improved; the rating for safe went down. We did not rate effective.

7th-9th March 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust provides acute and specialist healthcare for a population of around two million people in north west London and the surrounding areas. The trust has five hospitals Charing Cross, Hammersmith, Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea, St Mary’s and the Western Eye. Charing Cross Hospital is an acute general teaching hospital located in Hammersmith, London.

Medicine and specialist medicine at Charing Cross Hospital sat under two directorates in the hospital; with the majority of the medical wards under the division of medicine and integrated care. The medical services include acute medicine unit (AMU), care of the elderly wards, specialist wards such as medical oncology, respiratory medicine, stroke unit, neurology, gastroenterology and endocrinology.

We plan our inspections based on our assessment of the risk to patients from care that is or appears to be less than good. We inspected the medicine and elderly care services because we had information giving us concerns about the quality of this service.

We last inspected the medicine and elderly care service in September 2014 as part of our comprehensive inspection program and rated the service as requires improvement. During that inspection we observed hospital discharges occurring after 10pm. We found that care plans for people living with dementia and diabetes were not used and we noted patients stayed in the hospital for longer than the national average. There were high vacancy rates among staff and it was not clear what the senior management was doing to address this.

During this inspection we found the overall quality of the medicine and elderly care services had improved and we rated it as good. We rated safe as requires improvement; effective and caring were rated as outstanding and responsive and well-led were rated as good.

Our Key findings were;

  • The hospital participated in and used the outcomes from local and national audits for benchmarking, and to improve patient care and develop care and treatment pathways for the patients. All staff were actively engaged in activities to monitor and improve qualities and outcomes.

  • The hospital was the second best performing hospital in the country among the trusts taking part in the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) for the hyper acute stroke unit.

  • The trust was consistently monitoring and improving their mortality rate and remained in the top five lowest-risk acute trust. The trust was the second lowest-risk acute trust in the 2016 Hospital Standards Mortality Ratio (HSMR) and the third lowest-risk acute trust in the Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI).

  • There was a strong, caring and visible-centred culture, which was fully rooted on all the medical wards visited. Staff we spoke to were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promotes people’s dignity.

  • Staff demonstrated in-depth knowledge of the principles of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS), safeguarding, consent and the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and we saw examples of these areas in practice.

  • Staff were proactively supported to acquire new skills and share best practice to ensure continuous development of their skills, competence and knowledge.

  • Staff actively sought, monitored and reviewed patient consent and processes to improve patient decision making about their care and treatment.

  • Staff worked proactively and effectively as part of the multidisciplinary and multi-agency team to deliver patient centred care and improve patient discharges, access and flow.

  • The service provided care that took account of people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs into account.

  • Patients and relatives gave positive feedback about the manner and attitude of staff. During inspection we saw people were treatment with kindness and respect by staff from all disciplines.

  • There was emotional support, chaplaincy, support groups, psychologist and psychiatry support available to patients and their relatives.

  • The service was planned and delivered to meet the needs of various patients in the local area.

  • The medical wards were dementia friendly and there were dementia signs and activities for patients with dementia. The medical wards performed better than the England average on the 2016 patient led assessments of the care environment (PLACE) audit on the provision of care for people with dementia.

  • The medical wards bed occupancy rate was better than the England average.

  • The medical wards performed better than England average for the two weeks GP referral for breast symptoms.

  • We noted improvement in the number of outliers, length of stay and discharges, and these were escalated to senior leads and discussed at their daily multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings.

  • The service had clear systems and processes, to ensure complaints were dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. The trust recruited complaint investigator to handle complaint received in the hospital.

  • Staff told us leaders were visible, accessible and supportive.

  • There was a clear vision and strategy for the hospital. We saw the trust values were mirrored in staff actions and behaviours during inspection.

  • The hospital welcomed views and input from staff and the local public which allowed a sense of engagement and empowerment from those involved in the service to help improve the quality of care and services been provided.

  • We saw evidence of various initiatives, innovations and pathways developed in the hospital and trust to improve patient care and outcomes.

However:

  • Staff did not follow the trust policies and national guidelines in the management and disposal of medicines, including controlled drugs and medical gases. We noted medicines errors that related to the use of controlled drug (CDs) during inspection. Staff were not following the trust policy in storing medicines at the right temperature and monitoring of the room temperature regularly. Controlled drugs were not secured and stored with other patients own property and equipment on Ward 8 South. We saw that expired medicines were not disposed and stored with other medicines on the wards.

  • We found several boxes of unused medicines in the domestic waste bin, which were not disposed appropriately. We observed three bottles of used IV antibiotics still connected with the IV line on the worktable in the treatment and had not been disposed appropriately by staff.

  • The trust compliance with mandatory training for medicine and the medicine specialities was 81.3 % for medical staff and 84% compliance for the nursing staff and allied health professionals, which was below their 90% target. Staff on medical wards were not meeting the trust targets for almost all modules of mandatory training, including safeguarding, information governance, health safety & welfare, MCA, consent, fire safety clinical and high risk area and resuscitation.

  • Mandatory training rates for scientific and technical staff (31.4%) were significantly lower than the trust’s 90% target.

  • There was personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff used it, however some medical staff did not wash their hands between patients.

  • Resuscitation trolleys were not restocked and checked consistently by staff on the wards.

  • There was a high usage of nursing bank and agency staff due to the high number of vacancies.

  • There was poor signage on the wards and throughout the hospital. The signs were not updated to reflect the relocation of wards.

  • The trust wide medical wards did not meet the NHS England national indicator for 18 weeks referral to treatment (RTT) times.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • Charing Cross Hospital medical care provided outstanding and effective medical care to patients. The hospital participated in and used the outcomes from local and national audits for benchmarking, and to improve patient care and develop care and treatment pathways for the patients. The hospital was the second best performing hospital in the country among the trusts that took part in the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) for the hyper acute stroke unit.

  • Staff actively engaged in activities to monitor the quality and outcomes of patients care and treatment.

  • The trust’s performed higher or similar to the national averages for outcomes of patients on other national audits. These included the the Myocardial Ischemia National Audit Project (MINAP), Inflammatory Bowel Disease Programme (IBD) and the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit (Nadia)

  • The trust was consistently monitoring and improving their mortality rate and remained in the top five lowest-risk acute trust. The trust was the second lowest-risk acute trust in the 2016 Hospital Standards Mortality Ratio (HSMR) and the third lowest-risk acute trust in the Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI).

  • Patients care and treatment were always consultant led and staff used evidence based best practice.

  • Staff worked proactively and effectively as part of the multidisciplinary and multi-agency team to deliver patient centred care and improve patient discharges, patient care, access and flow.

  • Patients’ medical and nursing records were available for all meetings and assessments, which meant that the most up to date information was considered when reviewing care and treatment.

  • Without exception, patients told us they were treated with kindness, dignity, respect and compassion. There was a high standard of care provided for patients on the medical wards, and we saw that staff went to great lengths to respect and accommodate the wishes of patients and their loved ones. There was a strong, caring and visible-centred culture, which was fully rooted on all the medical wards visited. Staff we spoke to were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind, respectful and promotes people’s dignity. Staff consistently considered peoples’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs and delivered kind and compassionate care.

  • The Friends and Family Test (FFT) results showed the medical wards performed better than national average on the response rate and people who would recommend the service.

There were areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the trust must;

  • The trust must make sure that staff follows the trust’s medicine management policies concerning safe storage of medicines and medical gases.

  • The trust must take action to ensure medical wards are meeting mandatory training including the resuscitation training requirements for their staff.

The trust should do the following;

  • The hospital should review the recording of patients’ own controlled drugs to make sure stock levels and administration can be clearly documented.

  • The hospital should ensure resuscitation trolleys are checked, restocked and recorded consistently.

  • The hospital should ensure staff washes their hands between patients.

  • The hospital should ensure compliance with appraisal and mandatory training meets the trusts target for safeguarding, consent and mental capacity act.

  • The hospital should consider improvements to the hospital estate and facilities for the elevators, lifts and flooring of some wards areas.

  • The trust should improve hospital signage, ensure it is up to date and provides clear information for visitors on how to access the wards.

  • The hospital should review the facilities provided in ward day-room areas so they meet the needs of the patients using them.

Professor Ted Baker

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

22nd - 24th November 2016

During a routine inspection

Charing Cross Hospital is an acute general teaching hospital located in Hammersmith, London. The present hospital was opened in 1973, it is part of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.  The trust's central outpatient departments were located at St Mary's Hospital, Charing Cross Hospital and Hammersmith Hospital which were overseen by a single leadership team (Lead Nurse, Clinical Director and General Manager), with dedicated clinical and administrative leadership teams based on each site.

Our last comprehensive inspection of the trust was undertaken in September 2014 when we rated the outpatients and diagnostic imaging service at Charing Cross Hospital as inadequate. The purpose of this focused follow-up inspection was to inspect core services that had previously been rated as inadequate.

During this inspection we found the service had improved. We rated the outpatients and diagnostic imaging service at Charing Cross Hospital as requires improvement overall.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The majority of non-managerial staff we spoke with were unsure regarding the duty of candour until prompted.
  • We found nuclear medicine fridges containing radioisotopes for use in scans were not monitored consistently.
  • The majority of radiotherapy staff members we spoke with raised concerns regarding the safety of the radiotherapy on-call service.
  • The trust did not meet its diagnostic report turnaround time target of all diagnostic imaging being reported on within two weeks.
  • We observed that there was poor signposting throughout the hospital both outside and inside.
  • The outpatient and radiology waiting areas had a lack of drinking water facilities, the majority of patients we spoke with told us they could not find where to access drinking water.
  • The trust consistently did not meet national targets for a variety of performance indicators.
  • The majority of patients we spoke with in the outpatient and radiology departments commented negatively in regards to waiting times
  • The majority of staff we spoke with felt that that senior management focussed on other trust sites more than Charing Cross.
  • All non-managerial staff we spoke with across the whole hospital said that the executive team was not visible enough at Charing Cross.
  • We found the leadership within the radiotherapy department required improvement.
  • The majority of radiotherapy staff we spoke with told us that they did not feel supported by the managerial team.
  • The majority of staff we spoke with could not tell us the hospital’s vision or values.
  • We were told of by staff of a blame culture in radiotherapy with friction between the different radiographer staffing groups.
  • The majority of non-managerial nursing staff told us they felt tired and overworked.

However we also found some areas of good practice:

  • The outpatient department consistently met its compliance target for hand hygiene and ‘bare below the elbow’. The department also scored 100% for cleanliness in the patient-led assessments of the care environment (PLACE) audits for 2016.
  • We observed that there were a sufficient number of doctors to run the scheduled outpatient clinics and the clinics were consultant led.
  • Care and treatment within all areas we visited was delivered in line with evidence-based practice.
  • Friends and family score for October 2016 demonstrated 88% and 97% of outpatient and radiology patients would recommend the service.
  • Patient comments regarding their care and treatment were positive regarding the outpatients, radiotherapy and imaging departments.
  • A trust wide outpatient improvement plan which laid out five key areas of improvement was being implemented.

There were areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements. Importantly, the trust should:

  • Address the safety concerns of staff in regards to the weekend on-call radiotherapy service.

  • Ensure the safe and consistent monitoring of fridges containing radioisotopes.

  • Quicken the process of hiring new outpatient nursing staff, in order to provide adequate cover for staff absences.

  • Ensure all staff understand the concept and utilisation of the duty of candour.

  • All staff remain compliant with mandatory training and safeguarding training.

  • Ensure there is adequate qualified radiologist cover for the out-of hours interventional radiology service.

  • Ensure there is sufficient drinking water available to patients waiting to be seen.

  • Address all concerns of staff bullying and harassment issues.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

2-5 and 11 September 2014

During a routine inspection

Charing Cross Hospital is part of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. It is an acute hospital and provides accident and emergency (A&38;E), medical care, surgery, critical care, end of life care and outpatient services. These are six of the eight core services that are always inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as part of its new approach to hospital inspection. The other two core services that are not provided by this hospital are maternity and family planning and services for children and young people.

Charing Cross Hospital has 444 beds and is based in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The hospital provides a range of elective and non-elective inpatient surgical and medical services as well as a 24-hour A&38;E department and outpatient services.

The team included CQC inspectors and analysts, doctors, nurses, experts by experience and senior NHS managers. The inspection took place between 2 and 5 September 2014, with one unannounced visit on 11 September.

Overall, we rated this hospital as ‘requires improvement’. We rated effective and caring as ‘good’ but safety, responsive and well-led as ‘requires improvement’.

We rated A&38;E and end of life care as ‘good’, but medical services, surgery and critical care as ‘requires improvement’. We rated outpatients as ‘inadequate’.

Our key findings were as follows:

Safe:

  • The hospital was visibly clean and well-lit. Good hand hygiene and other infection control measures were practiced by staff.
  • The hospital had sufficient staff for the acuity and dependency of patients in most areas.
  • Patients were asked for their consent before procedures were carried out and staff knew how to report concerns related to alleged abuse or neglect.

Effective:

  • Policy and protocols were underpinned by national guidelines and there was a single source of guidelines and protocols for staff. The department had also drawn up its own decision tools to aid consistent clinical practice. There was an annual audit plan and audits often led to changes in practice.
  • The hospital was the third best performing hospital in the country among the trusts taking part in the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme. Pathways used for the assessment and management of patients’ medical conditions were informed by appropriate national guidance.
  • Clinical staff were competent to carry out their roles and worked well within multidisciplinary teams.

Caring:

  • We observed exemplary respectful and kindly interactions with patients that showed genuine concern for patients’ wellbeing the A&38;E department. The department received a large number of compliments from patients and their relatives.
  • Staff interacted well and did their best to make patients comfortable in all areas.
  • Patients’ privacy and dignity were respected and there were no breaches of single-sex accommodation.
  • Patient feedback was mostly was positive and staff treated patients with care and compassion.

Responsive:

  • There was a process for reviewing complaints and for people to make suggestions for improvement. The hospital took account of patients’ views and their feedback was used to improve the service.

Well-led:

  • There was open and effective team working in which staff felt empowered to take responsibility and make suggestions. Where there were problems and emerging concerns, these were escalated to senior management without hesitation.
  • The services engaged with patients and staff and their views informed service planning and delivery.
  • There was a planned programme of quality measurement and audits taking place throughout the year.
  • However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

The trust must:

  • Correct the problems associated with the administration of appointments which was leading to unnecessary delays and inconvenience to patients.
  • Address the high vacancy rates for nursing staff and healthcare assistants in some medical wards, and the level medical staffing out of hours for the intensive care unit (ICU) and level 2 beds.

The trust should:

  • Take sufficient steps to ensure the ‘Five steps to safer surgery’ checklist was embedded in practice at Charing Cross Hospital.
  • Ensure that all patients who undergo non-urgent emergency surgery are not without food and fluids for excessively long periods.
  • Increase the capacity in the outpatients department to address the increased demand and adequately respond to people’s needs.
  • Assign sole responsibility for the outpatients department to one division so that quality and risk issues could be managed more effectively.
  • Meet its target of sending out appointment letters to patients within 10 working days of receiving the GPs referral letter.
  • Ensure outpatient letters to GPs occur within its target time of 10 days following clinics.
  • Ensure learning from investigations of patient falls and pressure ulcers is proactively shared trust-wide.
  • Reduce the backlog of patients who are awaiting elective surgery.
  • Increase capacity to ensure patients admitted to the surgical services can be seen promptly and receive the right level of care.
  • Avoid cancelling outpatient clinics at short notice.
  • Minimise number of out-of-hours transfers and discharges from the medical wards.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

22 January 2014

During a themed inspection looking at Dementia Services

We visited Charing Cross Hospital on 22nd January and went to the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E), the Clinical Decision Unit (CDU) and two general medical wards, one of which was specifically for care of older people and one which had beds where the majority were designated for care of older people. We also spoke with staff on the wards and departments we visited, observed care being delivered and spoke with patients and family members. We also spoke with members of the Dementia Care Team in the Trust including the medical lead and a dementia specialist nurse. We received further information from the Trust during the inspection. We looked at treatment records for patients of which we checked six records for people who had dementia and spoke with staff who worked in discharge planning and the hospital social work team.

We looked specifically at people the care and treatment of people who were admitted to hospital and had either diagnosed dementias or identified cognitive impairments who may have been admitted to the hospital for a number of reasons.

Most people we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service they received in the hospital. One person told us 'they [the nursing staff] are always there for me' and another person told us 'I'm looked after absolutely perfectly'. Most care we observed was delivered by nursing staff in a kind and responsive manner. We saw that family members were involved in discussions about their relatives by looking in the notes and by speaking with family members.

We saw that the hospital had a process to ensure that people with dementia who had different support needs were identified on admission and provided with care and treatment which met their individual needs. We tracked people's paths through the hospital and found that this was effective. People's assessments of needs included their medical history and social needs however there was some variation in the quality and detail of information about people's social histories and preferences.

Most of the staff we spoke with had received a minimum of one day training specifically related to dementia care and they all spoke positively about this.

There were systems put in place by the provider on a ward and Trust-wide level to monitor the quality of dementia care provided.

29 August 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to be a patient in Charing Cross Hospital. They described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people in hospitals were treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs were met.

We visited five wards during our visit and observed lunchtime on three wards. The wards were chosen as the majority of the patients were older people.

The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by two other CQC compliance inspectors, a practising professional and an Expert by Experience, who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

We spoke with more than 20 people and their relatives. They were generally positive about the hospital regarding the information they received about their care and treatment, ward environment, choice of menu, facilities and their surroundings. They were very positive about their experience of staff. One person said they 'couldn't ask for more' and another described Charing Cross Hospital as a 'magnificent organisation' and had the highest praise for the hospital.

We saw positive feedback from relatives about the care given to their family members, for example the relative being 'treated with great respect and treated seriously' and being made welcome when visiting.

31 January 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited ten wards and departments and spoke to patients who were using the service. The majority of patients we spoke with were happy with the care they were receiving. They felt involved in their discharge arrangements and gave some examples of how the pre-admission preparation for some planned procedures had helped them throughout their stay.

Patients also told us that they found the hospital to be clean and saw staff washing their hands and using gel appropriately.

20, 21 January 2011

During a routine inspection

We visited 13 wards and departments. The majority of patients we spoke to were happy with the care they were receiving. They found staff to be generally polite and helpful and felt they were treated with respect. All of the patients had been nursed in single sex areas. They reported that the environment was clean.

Patients were generally happy with the food in the hospital. They received assistance with eating when they needed it.

Patients felt informed about their care, including medications they were taking. We saw evidence of information being available for patients and visitors.