The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • NHS hospital

Kingston Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Galsworthy Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 7QB (020) 8934 2814

Provided and run by:
Kingston and Richmond NHS Foundation Trust

All Inspections

11 October 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected the Maternity service at Kingston Hospital as part of our national maternity inspection programme. The programme aims to give an up-to-date view of hospital maternity care across the country and help us understand what is working well to support learning and improvement at a local and national level.

We will publish a report of our overall findings when we have completed the national inspection programme.

We carried out a short notice announced focused inspection of the Maternity service, looking only at the safe and well led key questions.

We did not rate this hospital at this inspection. The previous rating of good remains.

You can find further information about how we carry out our inspections on our website: https://www.cqc.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-do-our-job/what-we-do-inspection.

21 June 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this unannounced focused inspection as part of a pilot project following a direct monitoring call. We had not previously inspected the provider’s dental services. In accordance with our current oral health team’s revised methodology, we inspected against the safe, effective and well-led domains.

We inspected the dental department based at the Kingston Hospital site.

How we carried out the inspection

During the inspection, we spoke with 28 staff including, dentists, dental nurses, managers and administrative staff. We reviewed 18 sets of patient records and looked at a range of policies, procedures and other documents relating to the running of the service.

You can find further information about how we carry out our inspections on our website: https://www.cqc.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-do-our-job/what-we-do-inspection.

1 May 2018

During a routine inspection

Our rating of services improved. We rated it them as good because:

  • Staff treated people with the kindness, dignity, respect and compassion while they received care and treatment and there was a strong, visible, person-centred culture.
  • Staff took the time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. Patients told us they valued their relationships with staff and felt that they often went ‘the extra mile’ for them when providing care and support.
  • Patients and their relatives felt included in their plan of care. Patients told us nurses and clinicians spoke directly with them. They felt included in discussions about their treatment and staff took time to ensure they understood what was discussed.
  • The trust planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people and of individuals who required additional support. The trust had placed significant emphasis on meeting the needs of people living with dementia and had a series of arrangements in place to care for and improve the experience of those patients at the hospital.
  • There was a clear, strong, clinical leadership presence in the emergency department. Leaders understood the challenges to good quality care and identified the actions needed to address these.
  • Managers across the trust promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff. Staff felt respected, supported and spoke highly of their job despite the pressures, and were committed to delivering a good service.
  • The medical care service had a clear vision and set of values, with quality and sustainability as the top priorities. Leaders understood the challenges to quality and sustainability, and had pro-active ongoing action plans in place to address them.
  • The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment, and standards of cleanliness and hygiene were in line with trust policies and procedures, and with best practice. We noted improvement in equipment storage, use of fire doors and equipment safety testing since our last inspection. Recent rebuilding work had been designed by the staff to meet the needs of local people.
  • Documentation, training and staff understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had improved since our last inspection. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.
  • There were good safeguarding systems, processes and practices in place to keep people safe, and these were well communicated to staff. Safeguarding training rates were above the trust target of 85%, with 100% compliance in child safeguarding.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. Staff could access training to develop their skills and were supported to do so.
  • The trust planned and reviewed staffing levels and skill mix so that people received safe care and treatment. Although there were higher vacancy rates on some medical wards, there were processes in place to manage it to avoid any negative impact on patients.
  • The trust performed better than the England average for people being seen within two weeks of an urgent GP referral, and receiving treatment within 31 days for suspected cancer.
  • Staff carried out comprehensive risk assessments for patients and risk management plans were developed in line with national guidance. An electronic patient records system contained a series of prompts and checks relating to patient risk. Staff could not move on to the next section of the record until they had completed mandatory prompts or checks.
  • All levels of governance and management functioned effectively and interacted with each other appropriately.

However:

  • Oral liquids in drugs trolleys and stock rooms were not always appropriately labelled to show when they had been opened. This meant there was a risk that staff would be unaware of when use of an oral medicine should be discontinued.
  • In the outpatients department, about 50% of the resuscitation equipment had expired items on them; however, this was resolved by the time of our unannounced inspection.
  • All mandatory training rates did not meet the target of 85%, with conflict resolution and manual handling having the poorest compliance. The completion rates of some mandatory training modules for nursing staff in medical care were low.
  • Medical staffing was not at establishment in the emergency department, with half of the middle grade doctor posts vacant.
  • The Department of Health’s standard for emergency departments is that 95% of patients should be admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours of arrival in the ED. The trust was not meeting the four-hour standard, even when the department was not busy.
  • Staff did not have access to diagnostic services such as computerised tomography (CT) scans and ultrasound scans seven days a week. Staff told us they could only obtain diagnostic procedures for patients during the night or over the weekend on an emergency basis, and this required a consultant referral.
  • In the outpatients department, the locks were broken on one trolley containing patient records. This meant that although patients records were out of sight which maintained confidentiality, there was a risk that they could be accessed by unauthorised persons.
  • In the outpatients department, not all areas controlled the risk of infection well. In one area, the premises were visibly clean, but most of the hand washing gels were empty. We observed some clinicians not washing their hands between patients and others not wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

12 - 14 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust provides local services, primarily for people living in andaround Kingston-Upon-Thames. The trust provides services to approximately 350,000 people and provides a full range of diagnostic and treatment services, including emergency care, day surgery and maternity services. Our key findings were as follows:

Safe

  • Improvements were required for the safe storage of medicines in outpatients, theatres, some wards, and the emergency department. In particular with regard to recording of fridge temperatures, and restricting accessibility to storage facilities.
  • Improvements were required to ensure equipment used for patient treatment and care had routine safety and maintenance checks.
  • Improvements were required to ensure there was enough surgical instrumentation available in theatres.
  • Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns, to record safety incidents, and near misses, and to report them. However, incident reporting was not fully embedded in everyday practice within the emergency department.
  • Safety goals were set and performance was monitored using information from a range of sources.
  • People who used the services were told when they were affected by something that went wrong, and were informed of any actions taken as a result. However, letters written to people did not always contain a formal apology.
  • Staff and relevant individuals were involved in thorough and robust investigative reviews, where incidents or adverse events arose.
  • With the exception of the emergency department, lessons learned and action taken as a result of investigations were shared with staff and changes in practice implemented.
  • The environment in which people received treatment and care was clean and there were reliable systems to prevent and protect people from a healthcare-associated infection. Despite this, staff working in the emergency department did not always follow recommended hand hygiene practices.
  • The majority of staff had received effective mandatory training in the safety systems, processes and practices.
  • Risk management activities and procedures used by staff helped to ensure peoples safety needs were identified and responded to.
  • There were sufficient staff with appropriate skills to ensure the safe delivery of treatment and care in most areas.
  • There was a high number of new and inexperienced nursing staff in the emergency department and not enough permanent shift leaders or doctors to cover the rota.

Effective

  • People's consent to treatment and care was sought in line with legislation and guidance. People were supported to make decisions and where a person lacked mental capacity to consent to treatment or care staff made 'best interest' decisions. However, mental capacity assessment were not always carried out where patients required mechanical restraint on medical wards. Best interest decisions had not always been recorded for the interventions taken.
  • Staff generally had an understanding and awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS), but some staff reported not having formal training in either subject.
  • People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was delivered in line with legislation, standards and evidence based guidance.
  • A multidisciplinary team of staff worked collaboratively, and were supported to deliver effective treatment and care by relevant and current evidence-based guidance, standards, best practice and legislation.
  • Monitoring of the effectiveness of services was taking place and outcomes from such activities were generally used to improve standards and quality.
  • People receiving treatment and care were not discriminated against. Individual care needs took into account; age, disability, gender, pregnancy and maternity status, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation.
  • People’s nutrition, hydration and pain needs were assessed and action was taken by staff to meet their immediate and changing needs.
  • Technological equipment was generally available and used by staff to monitor and deliver treatment and care.
  • Staff had the right qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience to undertake their roles and responsibilities. They had access to appropriate developmental training and were supported by senior staff through a range of approaches. Staff had opportunities to receive feedback on their performance.

Caring

  • People were treated with kindness, dignity, respect and compassion whilst they received care and treatment from staff.
  • Staff took into account and respected people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs.
  • Staff were observed to take the time to interact with people who used the service and those close to them in a respectful and considerate manner. They showed an encouraging, sensitive and supportive attitude towards people receiving treatment and care, and those close to them.
  • People who used the services and those close to them were involved as partners in their care. Staff communicated with people so they understood their care, treatment and condition. They recognised when people needed additional information and support to help them understand and be involved in their care and treatment and facilitated access to this.
  • People were given appropriate and timely support and information to cope emotionally with their care, treatment or condition.
  • Staff encouraged participation from those close to people who used the services, including carers and dependents. People were encouraged and supported to manage their own health, care and wellbeing and to be as independent as able.

Responsive

  • Services had been planned and delivered to meet the needs of people within the local population. Stakeholders and other providers were involved in planning and delivering services.
  • The emergency department was not meeting the national target of seeing and treating 95% of patients within four hours of arrival. Ambulance hand over times were not always achieved.
  • The facilities and environment were being developed in some areas in order to meet the changing needs of the population using the services. Further improvements were needed in some areas to ensure privacy was not compromised and to meet the needs of particular groups of people. This including patients attending the emergency department with mental health related matters. The Critical Care Unit environment was not conducive to meeting the needs of patients, visitors and staff.
  • Services were accessible and took into account the individual needs of people who used them. This included vulnerable individuals and people with a physical disability, learning disabilities, and those living with dementia. Some environmental improvements were needed to areas where people living with dementia were receiving treatment and care.
  • People were given the help and support they needed to make a complaint. With the exception of the emergency department, complaints were handled effectively and confidentially, with a regular update for the complainant and a formal record was kept. The outcome was explained appropriately to the individual in an open and transparent manner. Lessons learned from concerns and complaints were acted upon by staff.

Well-led

  • There was a clear vision and a set of values, with quality and safety the top priority, which was understood by staff. Core services had robust, realistic strategies targetedtowards achieving the clinical priorities set by the trust and aimed at delivering good quality care; staff knew what their responsibilities were for delivering this. Targets were continuously reviewed.
  • The majority of clinical areas were well led, with strong and effective governance arrangements to oversee quality, safety and risk management.
  • Most staff reported effective leadership, with approachable and supportive line managers, who operated in an open and responsive culture. Some theatre staff reported challenges with visibility and direction of the main theatres leadership, with a need for more constructive engagement. Theatre leaders had recognised staff morale was an area for improvement and had put in place a number of interventions.
  • Staff in the majority of areas reported feeling respected and valued, and were enabled to contribute to service delivery and improvements.
  • There was a systematic programme of clinical and internal audit, which was used to monitor quality and systems to identify where action should be taken. There were arrangements for identifying, recording and managing the majority of risks, along with mitigating actions.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The Wolverton Centre, for providing comprehensive sexual health services; for provision of service alerts for vulnerable patients, including young people, and those with a learning disability.
  • A comprehensive dementia strategy, which enabled staff to support people living with dementia. A dedicated dementia improvement lead provided visibility and support to staff, ensuring positive interventions were implemented. The carer’s support pack, therapeutic activities and a memory café contributed to the enhancement of services.
  • The trust’s engagement with ‘John’s campaign’, promoted the rights of people living with dementia to be supported by their carers in hospital. To facilitate this, there was open visiting and a free car park for respective carers and relatives. Family members and carers were offered beds to stay overnight if needed.
  • The specialist palliative care (SPC) team stood out as highly skilled and effective. They supported staff to provide good quality, sensitive care to patients at the end of life and to the people close to them.
  • Staff of all disciplines demonstrated an impressive understanding of their role in addressing the needs of people at the end of life and of providing sensitive and compassionate care.
  • The paediatric diabetes team were a top performer in the National Paediatric Diabetes audit 2014 to 2015 due to HbA1C rates being better than the England average.
  • The trust participated in the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP), and achieved an A rating for the period January 2015 to March 2015.
  • The Physiotherapists in the critical care unit had reduced the length of stay for their patients through the early implementation of rehabilitation.
  • The engagement and involvement of volunteers was recognised as an invaluable team to support service delivery.
  • Patient pathway co-ordinators in outpatients had impacted positively on the effectiveness of appointment arrangements.

However, there were also areas of where the trust needs to make improvements. Importantly, the trust must:

  • Ensure that individuals who lack capacity are subjected to a mental capacity assessment and best interest decisions where they require restraint. Such information must be recorded in the patient record.
  • Make improvements to ensure medicines are not accessible to unauthorised persons; are stored safely, and in accordance with recommended temperatures.
  • Make improvements to the systems for monitoring of equipment maintenance and safety checks in order to assure a responsive service.
  • Ensure that the Duty of Candour is adhered to by including a formal apology within correspondence to relevant persons and that such a record is retained.
  • Ensure the management, governance and culture in ED, supports the delivery of high quality care.
  • Improve the quality and accuracy of performance data in ED, and increase its use in identifying poor performance and areas for improvement.
  • Ensure all identified risks are reflected on the ED risk register and timely action is taken to manage risks.

In addition the trust should:

  • Review patient outcome measures to consider how performance can be improved.
  • Staff should have timely access to regular training with respect to the Mental Capacity act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguarding.
  • Review length of stay and ways of decreasing this in care of the elderly and cardiology services.
  • Take steps to embed debriefings after operating lists across all surgery services, as part of the World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist.
  • Ensure better compliance with hand hygiene and cleaning of clinical equipment in the emergency department.
  • Review the skill mix and flexibility of staff within ED in order to respond to changes in activity levels and demand surges.
  • Improve ED staffs understanding and compliance with the trust's incident reporting procedures, complaints handling and application of learning from these.
  • Ensure there is accurate performance information in the ED.
  • Seek ways of consistently improving patient flow through the ED.
  • Ensure the systems for routine safety processes such as recording timely observations of patients, checking resuscitation equipment, and making sure medicines and cleaning chemicals were stored safely.
  • Ensure adequate and safe facilities for patients with mental health needs.
  • Ensure staff use computers securely in ED and do not share login cards
  • Improve staff engagement in main operating theatres.
  • Establish a robust system for ensuring required surgical instruments are readily available.
  • Increase visibility and leadership engagement within theatres.
  • Optimise pre-assessment procedures in order to limit cancellations on the day of scheduled surgery.
  • Take steps to ensure all nursing staff understand how to communicate with vulnerable and elderly patients in an appropriate way.
  • Improve responsiveness of nursing staff to patient call bells at weekends.
  • Consider how the environment and facilities in the CCU could be improved.
  • Review CCU records in order that capacity assessments can be documented.
  • Explore the benefits of having a follow up services available for patients who have used CCU so they are able to reflect upon their stay and can address long term psychological concerns.
  • Review maternity service bed capacity in order to address the increasing activity.
  • Ensure midwifery staff have access to required equipment.
  • Review staffing levels in maternity services in order to avoid delays of induction and elective caesarean sections.
  • Ensure children have an appropriate waiting area in the fracture clinic.
  • Review areas used by children and young people with a focus on age appropriate décor.
  • Ensure staff working in children's and young people's services have access to up to date editions of the British National Formulary (BNF).
  • Ensure registered nursing staff levels in children's and young people's services are in accordance with RCN and BAPM guidelines.
  • Review the specialist palliative consultant and nursing presence at the hospital in order to maintain progress towards meeting the provision of excellent end of life care.
  • Review the environment of the chapel and multi-faith facilities.
  • Consider how the environment on medical wards and in outpatients can be developed to enhance the experiences of people living with dementia.
  • Provide greater privacy for inpatients who attend the CT scanning unit.
  • Reinforce best practice around the use of appropriate interpreters.
  • Ensure information about chaperones is made easily available in all OPD clinics.
  • Ensure waiting times and clinic delays are appropriately displayed and communicated to waiting patients.
  • Have a consistent approach to sending reminders to patients about their appointments, to minimised non attendance.
  • Ensure that patient examination couches are checked and maintained as appropriate in the general outpatient area.
  • Address recommendations made by the Anti-Terrorism Squad for the safe monitoring of radionuclide medicine delivery.
  • Ensure proper systems are in place to facilitate governance meetings in each outpatient service.
  • Consider how daily cleaning schedules can be completed and quality checks and sign off of these are routinely undertaken.
  • Arrangements around equipment storage should be reviewed so that shower rooms are not used.
  • Utility rooms containing hazardous chemicals should be locked, with additional provision for secure storage of such products.
  • Fire safety precautions should be reinforced with staff to ensure fire doors are not propped open.
  • The policy for medicines management is followed to support the use of patients own medicines.
  • Review existing arrangements to ensure that suitable governance and assurances mechanisms are in place with regards to the trust's statutory duty to ensure that directors are fit and proper.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

25 February 2014

During a themed inspection looking at Dementia Services

This inspection was mainly focussed upon the care and treatment people with dementia received when they came to the Trust for medical treatment. We spent three days speaking with 60 patients, their relatives, staff, observing care practice and checking records. We visited and collected evidence from six wards and the accident and emergency department. The wards we visited were 'general medical, the acute assessment unit and orthopaedics'.

People were generally positive about their patient experience. They told us "Very good, they do their best and very polite". "I have been visiting the hospital over a number of years and have seen it has radically improved over the last two years". "Attention in terms of user-friendly care is vital and this has improved, particularly in the way that meals are organised".

We saw that the trust had made efforts to increase the profile of people with dementia and improve their care by encouraging involvement of non-medical staff, relatives and volunteers from the local community. They visited patients on wards during mealtimes to help people to eat their meals and have a 'chat'. Open visiting times had also been introduced and this enabled more flexible and enhanced contact for people with dementia and other patients with relatives, friends and carers. Staff said that the dementia training had improved their understanding of how to support patients with dementia. Staff told us of the importance of having empathy with their patients and said they felt much more equipped to support patients with dementia.

We saw most staff were very attentive to patients needs and explained their treatment to them. They provided care in a compassionate, polite and thoughtful manner. We saw staff actively encouraging people to ask about their treatment and being supported to make choices.

The trust had also developed more in depth training for staff in dementia care. We saw that this was reflected in the care practices on the wards where staff had completed the training. On these wards there was more use of the eight things about me care planning document, forget me not symbols and blue bands identifying people with dementia and that they may need more explanation of their treatment and way it was delivered.

The quality and completeness of records of people with dementia and other patients we looked at varied from ward to ward. Most recorded the required information, although some documents were incomplete. The care plans incorporated input from a number of health care professionals to make the approach to dementia care and in general more holistic.

18, 19 July 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection most patients said they were treated with respect and staff maintained their privacy and dignity. Most patients were positive about the treatment they received. Staff attitude was reported as being friendly and helpful. Comments included "Staff are attentive and understanding". We saw patients being treated with dignity and respect although their privacy was not maintained in some instances.

Most patients told us that they were 'satisfied' with their care and that staff had 'taken good care of them'. Some told us that they got the assistance required and that staff responded to their requests as appropriate. The quality of care and treatment, staffing numbers and skill mix was good on all areas we visited apart from the medical wards.

One patient said "I came in as an emergency and was seen straight away", "Happy with the service, they do their best". Another said "To be honest this hospital is reasonably good, a lot better than it was two and a half years ago".

Concerns were raised by patients, relatives and staff about the staffing levels and skills mix during the evenings and night on the medical wards.

Patients' comments about the medical wards included "The treatment is fair but not the greatest". 'I'm well happy, staff are always friendly", 'I think it's fantastic, you could not wish for better' and 'they (staff) are polite to you'. A relative said 'There is huge use of agency staff, different personnel day after day'. Another relative said that they had to help other patients on a medical ward whilst they were visiting their family member during the night, because staff were unavailable at the time. The relative reported that a staff member had thanked them by saying 'I don't have time'.

Staff on a medical ward said "On my ward there were three staff nurses with no healthcare assistants, fortunately there were two student nurses who helped'. This was a 24 bedded ward.

Patients we spoke with were aware of how to make a complaint if they were dissatisfied with the service they received. Complaints were acknowledged, investigated and followed up by the trust, although not all complainants were satisfied with the outcome and had voiced their concerns to the Care Quality Commission.

Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedures and knew how to raise an alert if they had concerns for a patient's welfare. Staff said that they felt well supported by their line managers.

Most patient records we reviewed were accurately maintained, although there were some gaps related to incomplete fluid intake charts on the medical wards. This was particularly important as there was a heatwave at the time. The trust's heatwave plan was not meeting people's needs, because people were being cared for in wards that were uncomfortably hot with no visible air conditioning and insufficient working fans.

19 October 2012

During a routine inspection

During our inspection the patients we spoke with said they were treated with respect and staff maintained their privacy and dignity. Comments from people included 'The care here is excellent', 'The nurses talk nicely to me, very cheery' and 'I couldn't ask for more from the nurses'.

They were positive about the treatment they received. Staff attitude was reported as being friendly and helpful. One described their experience of A&E as 'fantastic' and that the service was quick and efficient.

On the wards patients told us that their admission to the ward was 'straightforward' and all staff 'introduced themselves'. They also commented that 'staff are wonderful' and 'They always offer lots of tea which means a lot to me'. We also spoke to some relatives and they told us 'The staff are fantastic, they keep me informed'. One patient said 'The staff don't hang about but they do their job'. Another patient told us 'Staff are around and helpful but they are so busy' and 'If they have a minute they will chat but there are not enough staff and they are rushed off their feet'.

Three families we spoke with said that they felt their children were safe in the hospital.

Patients that we spoke to were happy with the cleanliness on the wards. They told us the ward is 'cleaned every morning'. Another patient told us that 'Once I asked the cleaner to clean the toilet and he did it straightaway'.

Patients and relatives did not comment on the hospital assessment, monitoring and record systems or the support staff received.

Other comments about the hospital included "they do very well here on the whole", "I can't speak highly enough about it, the staff are amazing", "this hospital is excellent", "I rate this hospital" and "They're dedicated, this is the place that saved my life".

21 March 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Termination of Pregnancy Services

We did not speak to people who used this service as part of this review. We looked at a random sample of medical records. This was to check that current practice ensured that no treatment for the termination of pregnancy was commenced unless two certificated opinions from doctors had been obtained.

16 November 2011

During a routine inspection

In order to carry out this review we looked at all the information we hold about this trust, and also undertook a visit to Kingston Hospital on 16th and 17th November 2011.

A team of nine compliance inspectors, a compliance manager, two pharmacy inspectors and a senior analyst visited fifteen wards, including those caring for elderly people, the children's unit, the maternity suite, the discharge lounge, the pharmacy and the accident and emergency department.

During our visit we observed how people were being cared for, talked with people who use services including adults and children, spoke with clinical and non clinical staff, and looked at various records.

We observed the lunchtime meal and we also looked at the systems in place for the storage, administration and disposal of medication were checked.

We spoke with members of the trust management, about clinical governance procedures in place and the way that the trust assures themselves that services they are providing are meeting the needs of the people who are using them.

As part of the review process our local intelligence team also analysed all the information we currently hold about this provider. Some of these findings are reflected within the main body of the report.

The majority of patients and visitors we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the overall standard of care and treatment they or their relatives received whilst staying on Kingston Hospital wards. Typical comments made by people we met, included: 'Pleasantly surprised how good the hospital is', 'It is not a bad ward'staff are all very nice', 'Its fine here'I am pretty satisfied', and 'They treat you as a person here'. 'The care has been exemplary, I can't fault them.'

Many of them told us that they preferred it to other hospitals that they could have gone to.

All the patients we spoke to felt that their dignity and privacy had been respected.

Staff attitude was reported as being friendly and helpful. Patients have the sense that nurses and other staff are extremely busy and were resigned to expect delays at times.

Staff told us that they were sometimes unable to meet patient demand because either there were not sufficient numbers of staff on duty or because agency staff were not either sufficiently experienced or qualified to do what was expected of them.

Overall the feedback we received from people was mixed in relation to the meals they receive as patients. We found that some wards are meeting people's nutritional needs better than others.

Staff told us that generally there was good liaison between the hospital and community services.

Patients and their families said the hospital was always very clean and we saw that there were good measures in place with regard to infection control, with hand washing facilities and antibacterial gel available.

Most people considered that they were given the opportunity to discuss their treatment options with their doctors and that they were kept informed as their treatment progressed.

Patients that we spoke with said that they felt very safe in the hospital and had not witnessed anything of concern. They felt that the staff listened to them if they were worried about anything.

As part of this review we contacted Kingston HealthWatch, a group who work with people who use the services gathering their views and with providers to influence change and improve services.They gave us the following statement, 'Kingston Hospital has started to include HealthWatch Kingston in all relevant Patient Experience Committees/Working Groups.

If any areas of concern are raised the Hospital does take immediate action. They keep excellent records of surveys, updates etc and produce action plans to address such issues.

The Hospital has come to realise that it is necessary to ensure that HealthWatch Kingston is involved in all aspects of its work and not just asked for comments.

HealthWatch Kingston has very good working relationships with Kingston Hospital Trust which will continue to be developed. They have recently employed a Patient Experience Improvement Manager who will also be working closely with Kingston HealthWatch."

23, 24 March 2011

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us that they were treated with dignity and respected. They said they were able to make informed choices and their privacy was maintained. They said that they felt valued and well cared for.

Most people told us that they liked the food. They said that they could make choices about what they ate and that they had enough to eat. People said that sometimes they would like different courses served separately.