University Hospital Aintree

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

The service mostly provided and maintained safe systems of care, in which safety was managed, monitored and assured. However, people were not always cared for in the right place which had the potential to impact safety. Concerns about safety were not always reported as not all staff felt they were listened to. However, those that were reported were investigated and lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practices. Facilities were not always maintained to a standard that supported staff to keep people safe. There was not always enough staff to deliver care that met the needs of people who used the service. However, staff were recruited safely and had training and supervision to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge they needed.

This service scored 53 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were encouraged and supported to raise concerns. They felt confident that they would be treated with compassion and understanding, and would not be blamed, or treated negatively if they did so.

Staff told us they knew how to access and use incident reporting systems. However, they did not always feel safe to raise issues and concerns. Leaders told us they used incidents, near misses and complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve care.

Incident and complaint policies were regularly reviewed and up to date. Incidents and complaints were investigated in line with policy guidance. Learning was shared at team and divisional meetings.

Staff and leaders did not always work together or in accordance with internal policies when moving patients between clinical areas.

Policies and processes about safety were aligned with other key partners involved in people’s care journey to enable shared learning and drive improvement.

Safety and continuity of care was not always a priority throughout people’s care journey. The approach to patient pathways and transition was not always consistent collaborative and joined-up.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People who used the service said their privacy and dignity was not always protected due to environmental factors.

Staff and leaders recognised that the environment was not always fit for purpose and did not consistently support staff to deliver safe and effective care.

People were not always cared for in safe environments that were designed to meet their needs. Facilities were not always well maintained and did not always support staff to deliver safe and effective care. Equipment used to deliver care and treatment was suitable for the intended purpose, stored securely and used properly.

There were processes to monitor the safety and upkeep of premises and equipment.

People who use the service told us that there was not always enough staff to meet their needs. Although all patients spoke positively about staff attitude they raised concerns regarding timeliness of care due to how busy staff were.

Staffing levels and skill mix was not always appropriate to make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care that met their needs. Staff told us how care was impacted by insufficient staff numbers. Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. This included supervision, appraisal and support to develop, improve services and where needed, professional revalidation.

Although staffing levels were not always appropriate, we observed staff working together to mitigate staffing gaps and try to keep people safe.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff, including agency staff and volunteers, were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Staff receive training appropriate and relevant to their role. However, compliance with this training was not always inline with the trust target. In addition, appraisal rates varied across the service.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.