Kidderminster Hospital and Treatment Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed 6 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Managers used patient surveys to see how happy patients were with the service. Between May and September 2024, all 217 people who completed a survey were satisfied with the service provided. Staff and managers used patient feedback to improve the service. For example, children and young people had fed back that the operating theatres were not very child friendly to look at, as these theatres were also used for adult operations on different days. As a result, managers had developed ‘pop up’ posters which could be put up easily for children’s theatre days and quickly removed to revert to an adult service.

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of children and young people. Staff accessed a telephone-based interpretation service for children and young people and their families when English was not their first language. Staff told us if an interpreter or signer was required to communicate with children/ young people and their families these could be requested for outpatient appointment and when they attended for surgery. Staff also printed leaflets in alternative languages for people who required these.

We saw staff supported children with autism and other children who were very anxious. We saw the play therapist worked with children to reduce their anxiety. This helped children to consent and go to their theatre for their required surgery. Play facilities were available in waiting areas and the children’s outpatient department. We saw children with autism were supported away from the main waiting room into a quieter area of the theatre suite which also had play facilities. Close to the ward area there was a kitchen where snacks and drinks were available for children, young people their parents or carers. The children’s outpatient environment was child friendly with a play area with toys available for smaller children and pictures and health promotion posters on the wall suitable for a variety of ages. Children’s outpatients had a dedicated children’s waiting area, with adequate space for accompanying adults, and secure play area to keep children stimulated whilst waiting for their appointments. The service was inclusive took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. The service had a person centred care approach to meeting the needs of people with a learning disability. There was good access to translation and interpretation services when needed.

We did not collect enough information from patients about their experience of care provision, integration and continuity to express their views in this report.

Managers identified they had developed and provided care and treatment to enable improved and when possible, more local access away from regional centres. This supported continuity of care within the trust for children and their families. Staff told us they worked well with other health professionals including GPs. Staff in the children’s outpatients had supported and trained staff working in GPs to take children’s blood to enable them to have their blood taken nearer to home.

Partners spoke positively about care provision and continuity of care the service provided. Partners identified GPs were able to access advice from a consultant paediatrician and there were good arrangements in place for children to transition to adult services.

The divisional team had improved systems and processes to ensure they were centred around the needs of children and young people. The service had developed processes to improve transition from children’s to adult service and ensure continuity of care. All 16 to18-year-olds were asked if they would like to be on children’s or adult surgical pathway. Young people who chose the adult pathway were admitted to the day case (adult) ward but had a single room and could be accompanied by their parent or carer.

Children young people, their parents and carers spoke positively about the information they received from staff, as part of their preoperative assessment. Information was provided in a format which was age appropriate and children and young people could understand.

Staff and leaders told us they had improved information available for children, their parents and carers and this had included the admission information leaflet.

There were systems and processes both about the availability and content of information, which was agreed by the the paediatric directorate team, for example the new admission information booklet.

People we spoke to did not know how to make a complaint but said they would ask to speak to the nurse in charge. One person said they had previously raised concerns when their child was unable to have surgery, but felt their concerns were appropriately responded to.

Staff and leaders said how much they valued feedback about the service and told us about changes made because of feedback, this included changed admission times and improved information about attendance for surgery. In the 12 months before the inspection, one formal complaint was received relating to the service. Learning was identified from the complaint, and we heard that actions were taken to improve patient and family’s experiences of the service. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning were used to improve the service.

There were posters available in all areas of the hospital with QR codes which people could scan and provide feedback about the service. Patient feedback was regularly discussed at Paediatric Quality Improvement huddles. Kidderminster Hospital and Treatment Centre introduced their own visual, child friendly feedback boards “Flossy feedback”. Children were able to identify with either a smiley or sad face from their experience which they then attached to the board. The trust also used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback forms with feedback cards available for completion and were collated and reported monthly. ‘Flossy feedback’ was recorded at the end of each day and totalled for the month and was reported monthly to Paediatric Directorate.

People told us access to the children and young people’s service was good. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Managers proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with other providers of children’s services, including the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made appropriate adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff confirmed they had access to aids for communication including communication cards, and accessibility guides.

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people, and the communities it served. It also worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care. The provider had processes to ensure children and their families were able to access the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people or children who found busy hospitals noisy and frightening. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from children and their families using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. From 1 August 2016 onwards, all organisations that provide NHS care and/or publicly-funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Standard sets out a specific, consistent approach to identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information and communication support needs of patients, service users, carers and parents with a disability, impairment or sensory loss. There were processes in place to ensure staff met this standard.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not collect enough information from patients about their experience of planning for the future to express their views in this report.

Staff told us about the support provided by the transitions team to support children moving to adult services and learn and improving the management of their long term conditions for the future.

The divisional team had monthly meeting which both reviewed current performance and identified where improvements were required and identified plans for the future.