Following an inspection by the care quality commission last year royal Stoke University Hospital has been rated as requiring improvement.
The CQC inspection report was published on friday says that Royal Stoke University Hospital requires improvement on 4 of the 5 categories inspected with the overall result being that it requires improvement.
The are in which the hospital was rated good was that the staff caring the report says Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimize their distress and that Staff cared for patients with compassion however, patient dignity was sometimes compromised.
The area of Safety in the inspection was rated as required improvement the report says that risks were not always identified and escalated. Not all staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse.
the effectiveness of the hospital was also said to require improvement saying that The service did not always ensure staff were competent for their roles.
the responsiveness came under fire saying people couldn’t access services when needed
the report also said that Not all managers had the right skills and abilities to run services providing high-quality sustainable care.
The overall summary of the inspection read :
Our rating of safe was Requires Improvement overall. Risks within the emergency department were not always identified and escalated appropriately. We were not assured that all patients allocated to wait on the corridor were safe. Not all staff had completed all of the required mandatory training. Not all staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse. However, despite the low training figures, staff we spoke with were knowledgeable on how to recognise and report abuse. Both nursing and medical staff throughout the core service did not meet the trusts targets for safeguarding training. The service did not always have enough nursing staff with the right qualifications, skills and experience to keep patient’s safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment on all wards. Staff did not always undertake observations of patients’ vital signs in a timely manner. Risk assessments relating to patient malnutrition were not undertaken in line with the trust target
Our rating of effective was Requires Improvement overall. The service did not always provide care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness. The service did not always ensure staff were competent for their roles. Managers sometimes appraised staff’s work performance to provide support and monitor the effectiveness of the service. Staff did not always assess and monitor patients regularly to see if they were in pain. Staff did not always understand their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They did not always know how to support patients experiencing mental ill health and those who lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care.
Our rating of caring was good overall. Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimize their distress. Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff cared for patients with compassion however, patient dignity was sometimes compromised.
Our rating of responsive was requires improvement overall. People could not always access services when they needed. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously however, complaints were not always responded to within appropriate time frames or learning effectively shared.
Our rating of well led was requires improvement overall. Not all managers had the right skills and abilities to run services providing high-quality sustainable care. Departments did not always have effective systems for identifying risks.”