Milton Keynes Hospital

Updated 22 October 2024

Date of assessment: 10 April 2024. Milton Keynes Hospital provides a range of NHS hospital services. This assessment looked at urgent and emergency services, which we rated as good. The rating from urgent and emergency services has been combined with ratings of the other services from the last inspections. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all other services at Milton Keynes Hospital. The rating of Milton Keynes Hospital remains good. In our assessment of urgent and emergency services we found: The service managed patient safety incidents well and learnt from them. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff worked with partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed, monitored and assured. The service had a systematic programme of clinical and internal audits. Staff demonstrated respect for people’s privacy and dignity, and treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. People could mostly access care and treatment when they needed it. Leaders listened to feedback from staff and made improvements. Staff felt supported in their roles. However, the service did not always have safe systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Patients did not always have their time crucial medicines prescribed in a timely manner. The environment and equipment did not always keep people safe. Mental health triage forms were not always completed for all patients who required them on arrival to ED, and some staff were not aware of this process. Medical staffing levels were not always in line with national guidance. Leaders did not always operate effective governance processes.

Updated 24 April 2024

Date of assessment 10 April 2024 The inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person using the service died. The information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the quality and safety of the service. These concerns were examined during our assessment. We inspected 19 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. The scores for these areas have led to a good rating for the service. The service managed patient safety incidents well and learnt from them. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff worked with partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed, monitored and assured. The service had a systematic programme of clinical and internal audits. Staff demonstrated respect for people’s privacy and dignity, and treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. People could mostly access care and treatment when they needed it. Leaders listened to feedback from staff and made improvements. Staff felt supported in their roles. However, the service did not always have safe systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Patients did not always have their time crucial medicines prescribed in a timely manner. The environment and equipment did not always keep people safe. Mental health triage forms were not always completed for all patients who required them on arrival to ED, and some staff were not aware of this process. Medical staffing levels were not always in line with national guidance. Leaders did not always operate effective governance processes.

Updated 30 July 2019

• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.
• The service controlled infection risk well. There were effective systems in place to ensure that standards of cleanliness and hygiene were maintained.
• The service had robust systems in place to ensure the safety of patients. this included risk assessments and monitoring of clinical outcomes.
• The service generally had enough nursing staff with the right qualifications, skills, training, and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse and to provide the right care and treatment.
• The service had enough medical staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse and to provide the right care and treatment.
• Staff kept appropriate records of patients’ care and treatment.
• The service prescribed, gave, recorded and stored medicines well.
• Incidents were managed appropriately.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.
• Staff gave patients enough food and drink to meet their needs and improve their health.
• The service managed patients’ pain effectively and provided or offered pain relief regularly.
• Staff were competent for their roles.
• Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients.
• Staff cared for patients with compassion.
• Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress.
• Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.
• The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people.
• The service took account of patients’ individual needs.
• People could access the service when they needed it.
• The service had managers with the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.
• Managers across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff.
• The service used a systematic approach to continually improve the quality of its services.
• The service had effective systems for identifying risks, planning to eliminate or reduce them, and coping with both the expected and unexpected.
• The service collected, analysed, managed and used information well to support most of its activities.
• The service engaged well with patients, staff, the public and local organisations.
• The service was committed to improving services by learning from when things go well and when they go wrong.

However,

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff, but not all staff had completed it in accordance with the services targets.
• Although the service treated concerns and complaints seriously, they were not always investigated, responded to, and closed in a timely manner.

Updated 6 March 2015

Updated 6 March 2015

Updated 29 November 2016

Overall, we rated the service as good for safety. Significant improvements had been made since the October 2014 inspection. We inspected the safe key question and we found that:

• Improvements had been made in the completion and review of patients’ ‘do not attempt cardio pulmonary resuscitation” forms.
• Staff knew how to report incidents appropriately, and incidents were investigated, shared, and lessons learned.
• Staff understood their responsibilities and were aware of safeguarding policies and procedures.
• There were effective systems in place regarding the handling of medicines.
• Equipment was generally well maintained and fit for purpose.
• Chemicals hazardous to health were generally appropriately stored.
• Risks in the environment and in the service had been recognized and addressed.
• Staffing levels were appropriate and met patients’ needs at the time of inspection.
• Patients’ individual care records were written and managed in a way that kept people safe
• Standards of cleanliness and hygiene were generally well maintained. Reliable systems were in place to prevent and protect people from a healthcare associated infection.
• Mandatory training was provided for staff and compliance was 100%.
• Records were accurate, well maintained and stored securely.
• Appropriate systems were in place to respond to medical emergencies.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and their care and treatment was delivered following local and national guidance for best practice.

Updated 5 July 2023

Updated 6 March 2015

Updated 30 July 2019

• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and knew how to apply it.
• The service had suitable premises and equipment was generally looked after well.
• Although there was a high number of vacancies for nursing and medical staff, the service ensured enough nursing and medical staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse and to provide the right care and treatment were on each shift.
• The service managed patient safety incidents 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 used safety monitoring results well. Staff collected safety information and shared it with staff, patients and visitors. Managers used this to improve the service.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness. Managers assessed staff compliance with guidance and identified areas for improvement.
• The service was working towards being a seven-day service.
• Staff supported patients to manage their own health, care and well-being and to maximise their independence following surgery and as appropriate for individuals.
• Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to consent and under the Mental Health Act (MHA)1983, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They knew how to support patients experiencing mental ill health and those who lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care.
• Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress. Patients and those close to them were able to receive support to help them cope emotionally with their care and treatment.
• Patients could access the service when they needed it. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit treat and discharge patients were generally in line with good practice. From January 2018 to December 2018, the trust’s average referral to treatment time for admitted surgical patients was 72.2% within 18 weeks which was above the England average of 68.3%.
• From November 2017 to October 2018, the average length of stay for patients having elective surgery at Milton Keynes Hospital was 2.6 days, which was shorter than the England average of 3.9 days.
• The service had managers at all levels with the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care. Senior leaders were visible and demonstrated commitment.
• The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and workable plans to turn it into action developed with involvement from staff, patients, and key groups representing the local community. Staff understood and demonstrated the trust’s vision and values.
• The service engaged well with patients and staff to plan and manage appropriate services and collaborated with partner organisations effectively.
• The service had effective systems for identifying risks, planning to eliminate or reduce them, and coping with both the expected and unexpected.
• The service was committed to improving services by learning from when things went well and when they went wrong, promoting training, research, and innovation.

However:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff but did not always make sure everyone completed it, with attendance at some life support courses being significantly lower than the trust target.
• Medicines were not always stored correctly, and we were not assured that effective governance arrangements were in place to ensure controlled medicines were recorded correctly.
• Systems and processes were in place to prevent and control infection, but they were not always followed. The service monitored staff adherence to most infection prevention and control procedures through audits although actions were not always taken to address lack of adherence.
• While policies and guidelines were readily available, staff asked were not aware of any changes to some guidelines, and staff awareness of national guidance varied. Knowledge of guidance varied by level of staff, with band 5 and 6 nurses unaware of NICE guidance.
• The service monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment but did not always use the findings to improve them. The trust participated in nation audits for example the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit and Patient Reported Outcome Measures and while outcomes were variable, the trust generally performed similar to the England average.
• Over the two-year period from 2016 to 2018, the percentage of last-minute surgical cancellations at the trust where the patient was not treated within 28 days was consistently higher (worse than) than the England average.
• Complaints were not always responded to in line with the trust’s complaints policy.
• The service did not always have a fully embedded systematic approach to continually monitor the quality of its services. The service used a systematic approach to improve the quality of its services and safeguarding high standards of care.