University Hospital

Ratings - Medical care (Including older people's care)

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

The medical care service at University Hospital (part of University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust) provides care and treatment for different specialties. During our assessment we visited 15 wards including: care of the elderly (ward 20), cardiology (ward 21), medical assessment unit (MAU), the respiratory unit (wards 30, and 31),infectious diseases ward (31a),acute frailty unit (AFU), gastroenterology (ward 32), haematology (ward 34), oncology (ward 35), stroke ward (ward 41), neurology (Ward 42), acute medical short stay (AM-SS), the endoscopy suite and the discharge lounge (which is managed by the Community Services clinical group and not solely for medical patients).

We carried out an unannounced visit on 25 and 26 September 2024. The assessment team included 2 CQC inspectors, 2 CQC bank inspectors and a specialist advisor. We also had senior specialists from the CQC people with a learning disability and autistic people team and a member of the medicines team. As part of our assessment, we looked at 16 patient records, spoke with 15 patients, and 41 members of staff. We attended 6 meetings. Our pharmacist specialist spoke with 2 people receiving treatment, 3 nurses and 3 clinical pharmacists. They reviewed clinic rooms, administration records and associated care records for 5 people. We checked 10 pieces of equipment.

This assessment was completed due to an aged rating and intelligence we had received about the service which informed our plan for the assessment.

People's experience of this service

Patients knew who to speak to with queries about their care or treatment. There was information available for patients, families, and carers on how to make a complaint.

Most patients we spoke to felt they were kept informed of treatment plans, discharge plans and referrals. They said they had opportunities to speak to doctors and consultants about their care. However, some patients and family members we spoke to said they were not always informed of the next steps, especially where the patient had complex or multiple needs.

Patients said their treatment had been explained to them and tests results and further treatment discussed, risks of procedures had been explained to them and discussions had been had about aftercare. They said they felt able to ask questions and express concerns. Communication styles had been adapted to help them understand.

Patients told us that they felt cared for and safe while they were visiting the service. All patients had call bells within reach, and we saw that staff responded quickly when called. People said they were supported to understand and manage any risks. They said that staff were very busy but that they responded quickly to requests and were available to help. Patients said the environment was visibly clean and that they had observed staff following the infection prevention control procedures.

Patients had access to staff members with specialist knowledge in a range of different subjects including diabetes, falls, tissue viability, sepsis, dementia and learning disabilities. This meant there was someone who could offer additional up to date advice or support to other staff working with a patient with additional or complex needs.

Patients we spoke to said they had been treated with kindness and that staff had been ‘very helpful’ and ‘lovely.’ Family members and carers we spoke to said they had been kept informed about their loved one’s treatment.