Chesterfield Royal Hospital

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

Staff understood how to protect children, young people and their families from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. Patient safety incidents were reported, staff we spoke with felt that learning was not shared effectively. However, the trust provided evidence of shared learning .For example; disseminated through meetings and news letters.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff we spoke with appeared committed to understand what safe meant to patients, families, and partners. Patient safety incidents were reported and staff understood how to protect children, young people and their families. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. The service worked well with other agencies to protect people. The trust provided evidence of actions and learning from patient safety incidents. We reviewed meeting minutes and bulletins that identified opportunities for learning. Despite this, staff we spoke with felt that learning was not shared effectively. Due to this staff told us this led to a reactive culture and staff had concerns that incidents could be repeated.

Staff understood how to protect children, young people and their families from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. Evidence was provided of actions and learning from patient safety and safeguarding incidents.

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.

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

Staff we spoke with felt that staffing levels were unsafe. The trust provided evidence of a reduction in beds for the ward in order to meet recommended safe staffing levels. Staff were concerned that bed numbers would be increased despite poor staff recruitment and retention. However, the trust provided evidence of a robust policy and plan that stated the requirements, roles, responsibilities, communication, processes and action to be taken to manage paediatric inpatient admissions and flow, which included all children’s services within the family care. Registered general nurses with specific paediatric competency were also employed to support the staffing levels within the family care division.

During the focus group, staff confirmed that the reduction of beds within Nightingale ward had improved the safety and there was sufficient staffing for the current 12 + 2 high dependency beds. However, despite evidence provided staff still appeared worried that the trust would increase the bed base without an increase in competent staffing levels. Observation and conversation with familes identified a busy environment providing effective safe care.

The trust had set parameters to safely manage the bed capacity on Nightingale ward. It clearly set out a process to be followed and a risk assessment. We were told that bed capacity and staffing would be reviewed on a monthly basis with emergency department colleagues, integrated care board and another trust to review and discuss any potential issues. The involvement of all stakeholders in these offered a wider viewpoint of the situation locally and the impact the reduced bed capacity may have within the local area. However, Staff we spoke with did not feel that senior leaders were listening to concerns. We found that the evidence provided during this assessment supported actions taken in accordance with staff concerns to benefit staff and patient safety.

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.