Southend University Hospital

Updated 16 January 2025

Southend University Hospital is part of Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust. Southend University Hospital is a district general hospital located in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex. The hospital has approximately 730 beds, including medical, surgical, maternity, women’s, children’s, and critical care beds. The March 2024 assessment focused on the Maternity services, evaluating them based on 5 key criteria: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive, and Well-led. Following the assessment the Safe and effective key criteria has remained at requires improvement. The rating for Caring and Responsive remained at Good and Well-led also remained at requires improvement. Critical Care was rated Good overall in August 2016, Services for children and young people was rated Good overall in April 2018, End of life care was rated Good overall in April 2018, Outpatients was rated Good overall in March 2020, Surgery was rated Requires improvement overall in December 2021, Urgent and emergency services was rated Requires improvement overall in December 2021, Medical care including older people’s care was rated Requires Improvement overall in October 2023.

Updated 15 February 2024

Southend University Hospital is part of Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust. Southend University Hospital is a district general hospital located in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex. The hospital has approximately 730 beds, including medical, surgical, maternity, women’s, children’s, and critical care beds. An assessment was conducted in March 2024 due to concerns about the safety and quality of services. The decision to assess was influenced by information received and a previous inspection, which took place between August and October 2022 at which the maternity service was rated as requires improvement. The March 2024 assessment focused on the Maternity services, evaluating them based on five key criteria: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive, and Well-led. Following the assessment the Safe key criteria has resulted in a good rating however Responsive and Well-led remain as requires improvement.

Updated 27 October 2023

Updated 24 April 2018

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

• Staff kept patients safe from harm and abuse. They understood and followed procedures to protect vulnerable children. Staff assessed and monitored patient risk.
• Care was provided in line with national and best practice guidelines. The service participated in both local and national audits to improve patient outcomes.
• Staff had the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Staff cared for patients with compassion, treating them with dignity and respect.
• Staff planned and delivered services to meet individual needs.
• The service had governance, risk management and quality measures to improve patient care, safety and outcomes.

However:

• The department did not ensure medical staff completed mandatory training to trust target levels.
• Staff did not consider the personal preferences of young people aged 16 and 17, specifically their preference to be nursed on either an adult or paediatric ward.
• Paediatric waiting lists were long, particularly for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and epilepsy assessments. The trust was not commissioned to provide this service to children over the age of five; however, they had continued to accept referrals. The trust was in communications with the local commissioners to reduce the waiting list.

Updated 2 August 2016

Effective processes were in place to learn from incidents and staff used learning from incidents and complaints to improve their practice and deliver safer, more effective care. The environment was clean and staff followed infection control procedures. Medicines, including controlled drugs, were safely and securely stored.

Medical and nursing staffing numbers did not always follow guidelines laid down in the Core Standards for Intensive Care Units.

Patients received treatment and care according to national guidelines and best practice. We saw effective multi-disciplinary team working across the units, with good consultant input. Junior doctors were adequately supported to provide safe treatment and assessment. Physiotherapists, dieticians, microbiologists and pharmacists were highly spoken of by CCU staff and were available when needed.

Without exception, staff were complimentary about the leadership on the unit. Managers on CCU and ARCU demonstrated commitment to patient care, delivering a positive patient experience, developing and caring for their staff, robust governance and effective strategic planning.

Updated 23 December 2022

Updated 24 April 2018

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

• End of life care improved and has been rated as good overall. The questions of safe, effective, responsive and well-led improved to good. Caring remained the same and was rated as good. The service handled safety incidents well. The service had processes in place to measure their performance. Staff went the extra mile in caring for their patients. The service had a cohesive team and had governance processes in place for the oversight of risk, safety and quality.
• The service managed patient safety well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients honest information and suitable support.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness. Managers checked to make sure staff followed guidance.
• Staff cared for patients with commitment, dignity and compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness.
• The trust planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people.
• The trust had managers at all levels with the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.

Updated 6 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 managed safety well. The service 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, 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.
• People were not always able to access the service when they needed it waiting times were below the national averages. The service did not always close complaints in line with the trust policy. 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.
• 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.

Updated 1 December 2021

Updated 1 December 2021