NHS hospital

University Hospital

Good

Clifford Bridge Road, Walsgrave, Coventry, West Midlands, CV2 2DX (024) 7696 8215

Provided and run by:
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

All Inspections

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.

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.

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.

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.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust provides a range of children and young people’s services which includes inpatients, outpatients, and a separate children’s emergency department. The children’s outpatient department is a separate facility managed by children’s services.

The hospital has 94 inpatient beds for children on several purpose-built wards. Care is available for infants, children, and young people up to the age of 18 years. Care is provided for emergency admissions, medical day case admissions, surgical day cases and inpatient surgical cases. There was a 6-bedded paediatric high dependency unit (HDU).

The service provided care for newborn babies requiring treatment in the level 3 neonatal unit is part of the west midlands perinatal network. Care was provided with 36 cots, 8 of which were intensive care, 8 were high dependency, 14 were special care and 6 transitional care with facilities for parents and carers to stay with their baby in hospital.

We carried out an unannounced assessment of the children and young people’s service on 25 and 26 September 2024. We assessed this service due to the time since the previous inspection and the age of the rating. At the last inspection in 2018, the service was rated good in all key questions. We reviewed all key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

We found 4 breaches while completing the assessment at the service.

We visited the children’s wards, paediatric HDU, the neonatal ward and the children’s outpatient’s department. We looked at 18 patient records. We spoke with 14 patients and their families who represented patients aged from newborn babies to 14 years. During our assessment we spoke with 39 members of staff. These included ward clerks, housekeepers, practice educators, teachers, the safeguarding lead, healthcare assistants, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) liaison, service leads, band 4, band 5, band 6, and band 7 nurses. We also spoke with ward managers, consultants, paediatric pharmacists, digital specialists, and children’s nurses.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust provides a range of children and young people’s services which includes inpatients, outpatients, and a separate children’s emergency department. The children’s outpatient department is a separate facility managed by children’s services.

The hospital has 94 inpatient beds for children on several purpose-built wards. Care is available for infants, children, and young people up to the age of 18 years. Care is provided for emergency admissions, medical day case admissions, surgical day cases and inpatient surgical cases. There was a 6-bedded paediatric high dependency unit (HDU).

The service provided care for newborn babies requiring treatment in the level 3 neonatal unit is part of the west midlands perinatal network. Care was provided with 36 cots, 8 of which were intensive care, 8 were high dependency, 14 were special care and 6 transitional care with facilities for parents and carers to stay with their baby in hospital.

We carried out an unannounced assessment of the children and young people’s service on 25 and 26 September 2024. We assessed this service due to the time since the previous inspection and the age of the rating. At the last inspection in 2018, the service was rated good in all key questions. We reviewed all key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

We found 4 breaches while completing the assessment at the service.

We visited the children’s wards, paediatric HDU, the neonatal ward and the children’s outpatient’s department. We looked at 18 patient records. We spoke with 14 patients and their families who represented patients aged from newborn babies to 14 years. During our assessment we spoke with 39 members of staff. These included ward clerks, housekeepers, practice educators, teachers, the safeguarding lead, healthcare assistants, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) liaison, service leads, band 4, band 5, band 6, and band 7 nurses. We also spoke with ward managers, consultants, paediatric pharmacists, digital specialists, and children’s nurses.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust provides a range of children and young people’s services which includes inpatients, outpatients, and a separate children’s emergency department. The children’s outpatient department is a separate facility managed by children’s services.

The hospital has 94 inpatient beds for children on several purpose-built wards. Care is available for infants, children, and young people up to the age of 18 years. Care is provided for emergency admissions, medical day case admissions, surgical day cases and inpatient surgical cases. There was a 6-bedded paediatric high dependency unit (HDU).

The service provided care for newborn babies requiring treatment in the level 3 neonatal unit is part of the west midlands perinatal network. Care was provided with 36 cots, 8 of which were intensive care, 8 were high dependency, 14 were special care and 6 transitional care with facilities for parents and carers to stay with their baby in hospital.

We carried out an unannounced assessment of the children and young people’s service on 25 and 26 September 2024. We assessed this service due to the time since the previous inspection and the age of the rating. At the last inspection in 2018, the service was rated good in all key questions. We reviewed all key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

We found 4 breaches while completing the assessment at the service.

We visited the children’s wards, paediatric HDU, the neonatal ward and the children’s outpatient’s department. We looked at 18 patient records. We spoke with 14 patients and their families who represented patients aged from newborn babies to 14 years. During our assessment we spoke with 39 members of staff. These included ward clerks, housekeepers, practice educators, teachers, the safeguarding lead, healthcare assistants, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) liaison, service leads, band 4, band 5, band 6, and band 7 nurses. We also spoke with ward managers, consultants, paediatric pharmacists, digital specialists, and children’s nurses.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust provides a range of children and young people’s services which includes inpatients, outpatients, and a separate children’s emergency department. The children’s outpatient department is a separate facility managed by children’s services.

The hospital has 94 inpatient beds for children on several purpose-built wards. Care is available for infants, children, and young people up to the age of 18 years. Care is provided for emergency admissions, medical day case admissions, surgical day cases and inpatient surgical cases. There was a 6-bedded paediatric high dependency unit (HDU).

The service provided care for newborn babies requiring treatment in the level 3 neonatal unit is part of the west midlands perinatal network. Care was provided with 36 cots, 8 of which were intensive care, 8 were high dependency, 14 were special care and 6 transitional care with facilities for parents and carers to stay with their baby in hospital.

We carried out an unannounced assessment of the children and young people’s service on 25 and 26 September 2024. We assessed this service due to the time since the previous inspection and the age of the rating. At the last inspection in 2018, the service was rated good in all key questions. We reviewed all key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

We found 4 breaches while completing the assessment at the service.

We visited the children’s wards, paediatric HDU, the neonatal ward and the children’s outpatient’s department. We looked at 18 patient records. We spoke with 14 patients and their families who represented patients aged from newborn babies to 14 years. During our assessment we spoke with 39 members of staff. These included ward clerks, housekeepers, practice educators, teachers, the safeguarding lead, healthcare assistants, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) liaison, service leads, band 4, band 5, band 6, and band 7 nurses. We also spoke with ward managers, consultants, paediatric pharmacists, digital specialists, and children’s nurses.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust provides acute and tertiary hospital services for over 1 million people. A wide range of general surgical services are provided which include but are not restricted to the following specialties: breast, colorectal, ear nose and throat, general surgery, head and neck, hepato pancreato biliary, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial, renal transplantation, upper gastrointestinal, urology, trauma and orthopaedics and vascular surgery.

Surgical services included three clinical groups: trauma and neurosciences; surgical services (with 12 surgical subspecialties); and clinical support services (comprising of theatres and anaesthetics). Each clinical group had a leadership team with a group clinical director, supported by a group director of nursing and AHPs and group director of operations. Reporting into the directors for each group were specialty/department teams consisting of a clinical service lead, a senior nurse and a group manager. This model was replicated throughout the three clinical groups.

University Hospital Coventry has 1,064 beds and 26 operating theatres and is a major trauma centre providing care for patients with severe injuries.

We carried out a planned inspection of the surgical services at University Hospital Coventry on the 25 and 26 of September 2024 and 11th March 2025.

We followed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) Single Assessment Framework and assessed against the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. As part of our assessment, we looked at 15 patient records, spoke with 12 patients, 5 relatives and 50 members of staff including the leadership team for surgery (known as the triumvirate) Surgery, Trauma and Neuro Services and Clinical Support Services, theatre manager, ward managers, scrub nurses, anaesthetists, consultants, healthcare assistants, recovery nurses, advanced care practitioners and staff nurses.

We found:

A strong safety culture was evident, where events were investigated, and learning was embedded to promote good practice. Good care and treatment was delivered in accordance with evidence-based practice, resulting in positive outcomes for patients. Staff were recognised for their kindness, compassion, and caring approach. The service was inclusive, ensuring that patients' individual needs and preferences were considered. Effective governance processes were operated by leaders, who used systems to manage performance efficiently.

The service did not meet NHS treatment standards due to the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic across England. However, managers worked continuously to reduce waiting times and address the backlog, showing steady progress. The service collaborated with other healthcare professionals to ensure timely care, particularly for serious conditions requiring specialist input.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust provides acute and tertiary hospital services for over 1 million people. A wide range of general surgical services are provided which include but are not restricted to the following specialties: breast, colorectal, ear nose and throat, general surgery, head and neck, hepato pancreato biliary, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial, renal transplantation, upper gastrointestinal, urology, trauma and orthopaedics and vascular surgery.

Surgical services included three clinical groups: trauma and neurosciences; surgical services (with 12 surgical subspecialties); and clinical support services (comprising of theatres and anaesthetics). Each clinical group had a leadership team with a group clinical director, supported by a group director of nursing and AHPs and group director of operations. Reporting into the directors for each group were specialty/department teams consisting of a clinical service lead, a senior nurse and a group manager. This model was replicated throughout the three clinical groups.

University Hospital Coventry has 1,064 beds and 26 operating theatres and is a major trauma centre providing care for patients with severe injuries.

We carried out a planned inspection of the surgical services at University Hospital Coventry on the 25 and 26 of September 2024 and 11th March 2025.

We followed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) Single Assessment Framework and assessed against the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. As part of our assessment, we looked at 15 patient records, spoke with 12 patients, 5 relatives and 50 members of staff including the leadership team for surgery (known as the triumvirate) Surgery, Trauma and Neuro Services and Clinical Support Services, theatre manager, ward managers, scrub nurses, anaesthetists, consultants, healthcare assistants, recovery nurses, advanced care practitioners and staff nurses.

We found:

A strong safety culture was evident, where events were investigated, and learning was embedded to promote good practice. Good care and treatment was delivered in accordance with evidence-based practice, resulting in positive outcomes for patients. Staff were recognised for their kindness, compassion, and caring approach. The service was inclusive, ensuring that patients' individual needs and preferences were considered. Effective governance processes were operated by leaders, who used systems to manage performance efficiently.

The service did not meet NHS treatment standards due to the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic across England. However, managers worked continuously to reduce waiting times and address the backlog, showing steady progress. The service collaborated with other healthcare professionals to ensure timely care, particularly for serious conditions requiring specialist input.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust provides acute and tertiary hospital services for over 1 million people. A wide range of general surgical services are provided which include but are not restricted to the following specialties: breast, colorectal, ear nose and throat, general surgery, head and neck, hepato pancreato biliary, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial, renal transplantation, upper gastrointestinal, urology, trauma and orthopaedics and vascular surgery.

Surgical services included three clinical groups: trauma and neurosciences; surgical services (with 12 surgical subspecialties); and clinical support services (comprising of theatres and anaesthetics). Each clinical group had a leadership team with a group clinical director, supported by a group director of nursing and AHPs and group director of operations. Reporting into the directors for each group were specialty/department teams consisting of a clinical service lead, a senior nurse and a group manager. This model was replicated throughout the three clinical groups.

University Hospital Coventry has 1,064 beds and 26 operating theatres and is a major trauma centre providing care for patients with severe injuries.

We carried out a planned inspection of the surgical services at University Hospital Coventry on the 25 and 26 of September 2024 and 11th March 2025.

We followed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) Single Assessment Framework and assessed against the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. As part of our assessment, we looked at 15 patient records, spoke with 12 patients, 5 relatives and 50 members of staff including the leadership team for surgery (known as the triumvirate) Surgery, Trauma and Neuro Services and Clinical Support Services, theatre manager, ward managers, scrub nurses, anaesthetists, consultants, healthcare assistants, recovery nurses, advanced care practitioners and staff nurses.

We found:

A strong safety culture was evident, where events were investigated, and learning was embedded to promote good practice. Good care and treatment was delivered in accordance with evidence-based practice, resulting in positive outcomes for patients. Staff were recognised for their kindness, compassion, and caring approach. The service was inclusive, ensuring that patients' individual needs and preferences were considered. Effective governance processes were operated by leaders, who used systems to manage performance efficiently.

The service did not meet NHS treatment standards due to the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic across England. However, managers worked continuously to reduce waiting times and address the backlog, showing steady progress. The service collaborated with other healthcare professionals to ensure timely care, particularly for serious conditions requiring specialist input.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust provides acute and tertiary hospital services for over 1 million people. A wide range of general surgical services are provided which include but are not restricted to the following specialties: breast, colorectal, ear nose and throat, general surgery, head and neck, hepato pancreato biliary, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial, renal transplantation, upper gastrointestinal, urology, trauma and orthopaedics and vascular surgery.

Surgical services included three clinical groups: trauma and neurosciences; surgical services (with 12 surgical subspecialties); and clinical support services (comprising of theatres and anaesthetics). Each clinical group had a leadership team with a group clinical director, supported by a group director of nursing and AHPs and group director of operations. Reporting into the directors for each group were specialty/department teams consisting of a clinical service lead, a senior nurse and a group manager. This model was replicated throughout the three clinical groups.

University Hospital Coventry has 1,064 beds and 26 operating theatres and is a major trauma centre providing care for patients with severe injuries.

We carried out a planned inspection of the surgical services at University Hospital Coventry on the 25 and 26 of September 2024 and 11th March 2025.

We followed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) Single Assessment Framework and assessed against the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. As part of our assessment, we looked at 15 patient records, spoke with 12 patients, 5 relatives and 50 members of staff including the leadership team for surgery (known as the triumvirate) Surgery, Trauma and Neuro Services and Clinical Support Services, theatre manager, ward managers, scrub nurses, anaesthetists, consultants, healthcare assistants, recovery nurses, advanced care practitioners and staff nurses.

We found:

A strong safety culture was evident, where events were investigated, and learning was embedded to promote good practice. Good care and treatment was delivered in accordance with evidence-based practice, resulting in positive outcomes for patients. Staff were recognised for their kindness, compassion, and caring approach. The service was inclusive, ensuring that patients' individual needs and preferences were considered. Effective governance processes were operated by leaders, who used systems to manage performance efficiently.

The service did not meet NHS treatment standards due to the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic across England. However, managers worked continuously to reduce waiting times and address the backlog, showing steady progress. The service collaborated with other healthcare professionals to ensure timely care, particularly for serious conditions requiring specialist input.

The urgent and emergency care directorate at University Hospital compromises of an adult emergency department (AE), a children’s emergency department, a minor injuries unit and urgent treatment centre, a surgical assessment unit, a medical same-day emergency care service, a frailty same-day emergency care service, and a gynaecology emergency unit.

Our inspection focused specifically on the adult’s emergency department and the children’s emergency department.

The adult emergency service at Coventry is a level one major trauma centre. Trauma patients could arrive by road or air ambulance. The service is one of the busiest major trauma centres in the UK.

Within the adult emergency department there was a resuscitation area for adults and 2 separate paediatric resuscitation rooms, a rapid assessment and treatment area for assessment of people arriving by ambulance. There was a majors area for those who were the most unwell, a patient ‘fit to sit’ area, and a waiting room. Within the children’s emergency department were high dependency rooms, a majors area, and a waiting room.

Majors is an area for patients with serious and life-threatening conditions. People with non-life-threatening conditions who were in need or urgent treatment were streamed by a senior nurse to the minor injuries unit or the urgent treatment centre. Fit to sit was a seating area with eight chairs designed to be used at times of overcapacity to prevent patients being held in areas considered inappropriate. The patients in this area were assessed as having lower clinical acuity than other patients within the majors area.

We visited the adult’s emergency department and the children’s emergency department twice. At the first visit which lasted 2 days, a team of 2 inspectors and 2 specialist advisors spoke with 49 members of staff (including managers, doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, healthcare professionals, receptionists, and administrative staff). We spoke with 24 patients, 3 relatives, we reviewed 19 whole or partial sets of patient notes, and we attended 6 meetings. The second visit took place 4 weeks later and lasted 1 day. The inspection team included a deputy director of operations, a senior specialist, and an inspector. At this visit we spoke with some of the same staff we had previously spoken with, we reviewed 6 partial sets of notes and attended 1 meeting.

We carried out this assessment following information of concern around waiting times and poor performance indicators. We inspected 30 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.

The demand on the service was so high at times and the capacity exceptionally constrained as a result that despite best efforts, staff were not always able to provide satisfactory care, especially for those patients waiting for treatment in the waiting rooms. However, patients who had been admitted to the majors department received good care and treatment that followed evidence-based practice, although because of long waits for treatment outcomes were not always positive. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate but could not consistently provide the best person-centred care or maintain patients’ privacy and dignity due to the demands placed on them. The department and staff were well-led by strong leaders who embodied the cultures and values of their workforce. However, due to constraints across the whole health and care system, leaders could not always make improvements to the service to provide the best safe and effective care that was responsive and met people’s needs.

We found 5 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing, premises and equipment, dignity and respect, and person-centred care.

The urgent and emergency care directorate at University Hospital compromises of an adult emergency department (AE), a children’s emergency department, a minor injuries unit and urgent treatment centre, a surgical assessment unit, a medical same-day emergency care service, a frailty same-day emergency care service, and a gynaecology emergency unit.

Our inspection focused specifically on the adult’s emergency department and the children’s emergency department.

The adult emergency service at Coventry is a level one major trauma centre. Trauma patients could arrive by road or air ambulance. The service is one of the busiest major trauma centres in the UK.

Within the adult emergency department there was a resuscitation area for adults and 2 separate paediatric resuscitation rooms, a rapid assessment and treatment area for assessment of people arriving by ambulance. There was a majors area for those who were the most unwell, a patient ‘fit to sit’ area, and a waiting room. Within the children’s emergency department were high dependency rooms, a majors area, and a waiting room.

Majors is an area for patients with serious and life-threatening conditions. People with non-life-threatening conditions who were in need or urgent treatment were streamed by a senior nurse to the minor injuries unit or the urgent treatment centre. Fit to sit was a seating area with eight chairs designed to be used at times of overcapacity to prevent patients being held in areas considered inappropriate. The patients in this area were assessed as having lower clinical acuity than other patients within the majors area.

We visited the adult’s emergency department and the children’s emergency department twice. At the first visit which lasted 2 days, a team of 2 inspectors and 2 specialist advisors spoke with 49 members of staff (including managers, doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, healthcare professionals, receptionists, and administrative staff). We spoke with 24 patients, 3 relatives, we reviewed 19 whole or partial sets of patient notes, and we attended 6 meetings. The second visit took place 4 weeks later and lasted 1 day. The inspection team included a deputy director of operations, a senior specialist, and an inspector. At this visit we spoke with some of the same staff we had previously spoken with, we reviewed 6 partial sets of notes and attended 1 meeting.

We carried out this assessment following information of concern around waiting times and poor performance indicators. We inspected 30 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.

The demand on the service was so high at times and the capacity exceptionally constrained as a result that despite best efforts, staff were not always able to provide satisfactory care, especially for those patients waiting for treatment in the waiting rooms. However, patients who had been admitted to the majors department received good care and treatment that followed evidence-based practice, although because of long waits for treatment outcomes were not always positive. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate but could not consistently provide the best person-centred care or maintain patients’ privacy and dignity due to the demands placed on them. The department and staff were well-led by strong leaders who embodied the cultures and values of their workforce. However, due to constraints across the whole health and care system, leaders could not always make improvements to the service to provide the best safe and effective care that was responsive and met people’s needs.

We found 5 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing, premises and equipment, dignity and respect, and person-centred care.

The urgent and emergency care directorate at University Hospital compromises of an adult emergency department (AE), a children’s emergency department, a minor injuries unit and urgent treatment centre, a surgical assessment unit, a medical same-day emergency care service, a frailty same-day emergency care service, and a gynaecology emergency unit.

Our inspection focused specifically on the adult’s emergency department and the children’s emergency department.

The adult emergency service at Coventry is a level one major trauma centre. Trauma patients could arrive by road or air ambulance. The service is one of the busiest major trauma centres in the UK.

Within the adult emergency department there was a resuscitation area for adults and 2 separate paediatric resuscitation rooms, a rapid assessment and treatment area for assessment of people arriving by ambulance. There was a majors area for those who were the most unwell, a patient ‘fit to sit’ area, and a waiting room. Within the children’s emergency department were high dependency rooms, a majors area, and a waiting room.

Majors is an area for patients with serious and life-threatening conditions. People with non-life-threatening conditions who were in need or urgent treatment were streamed by a senior nurse to the minor injuries unit or the urgent treatment centre. Fit to sit was a seating area with eight chairs designed to be used at times of overcapacity to prevent patients being held in areas considered inappropriate. The patients in this area were assessed as having lower clinical acuity than other patients within the majors area.

We visited the adult’s emergency department and the children’s emergency department twice. At the first visit which lasted 2 days, a team of 2 inspectors and 2 specialist advisors spoke with 49 members of staff (including managers, doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, healthcare professionals, receptionists, and administrative staff). We spoke with 24 patients, 3 relatives, we reviewed 19 whole or partial sets of patient notes, and we attended 6 meetings. The second visit took place 4 weeks later and lasted 1 day. The inspection team included a deputy director of operations, a senior specialist, and an inspector. At this visit we spoke with some of the same staff we had previously spoken with, we reviewed 6 partial sets of notes and attended 1 meeting.

We carried out this assessment following information of concern around waiting times and poor performance indicators. We inspected 30 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.

The demand on the service was so high at times and the capacity exceptionally constrained as a result that despite best efforts, staff were not always able to provide satisfactory care, especially for those patients waiting for treatment in the waiting rooms. However, patients who had been admitted to the majors department received good care and treatment that followed evidence-based practice, although because of long waits for treatment outcomes were not always positive. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate but could not consistently provide the best person-centred care or maintain patients’ privacy and dignity due to the demands placed on them. The department and staff were well-led by strong leaders who embodied the cultures and values of their workforce. However, due to constraints across the whole health and care system, leaders could not always make improvements to the service to provide the best safe and effective care that was responsive and met people’s needs.

We found 5 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing, premises and equipment, dignity and respect, and person-centred care.

The urgent and emergency care directorate at University Hospital compromises of an adult emergency department (AE), a children’s emergency department, a minor injuries unit and urgent treatment centre, a surgical assessment unit, a medical same-day emergency care service, a frailty same-day emergency care service, and a gynaecology emergency unit.

Our inspection focused specifically on the adult’s emergency department and the children’s emergency department.

The adult emergency service at Coventry is a level one major trauma centre. Trauma patients could arrive by road or air ambulance. The service is one of the busiest major trauma centres in the UK.

Within the adult emergency department there was a resuscitation area for adults and 2 separate paediatric resuscitation rooms, a rapid assessment and treatment area for assessment of people arriving by ambulance. There was a majors area for those who were the most unwell, a patient ‘fit to sit’ area, and a waiting room. Within the children’s emergency department were high dependency rooms, a majors area, and a waiting room.

Majors is an area for patients with serious and life-threatening conditions. People with non-life-threatening conditions who were in need or urgent treatment were streamed by a senior nurse to the minor injuries unit or the urgent treatment centre. Fit to sit was a seating area with eight chairs designed to be used at times of overcapacity to prevent patients being held in areas considered inappropriate. The patients in this area were assessed as having lower clinical acuity than other patients within the majors area.

We visited the adult’s emergency department and the children’s emergency department twice. At the first visit which lasted 2 days, a team of 2 inspectors and 2 specialist advisors spoke with 49 members of staff (including managers, doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, healthcare professionals, receptionists, and administrative staff). We spoke with 24 patients, 3 relatives, we reviewed 19 whole or partial sets of patient notes, and we attended 6 meetings. The second visit took place 4 weeks later and lasted 1 day. The inspection team included a deputy director of operations, a senior specialist, and an inspector. At this visit we spoke with some of the same staff we had previously spoken with, we reviewed 6 partial sets of notes and attended 1 meeting.

We carried out this assessment following information of concern around waiting times and poor performance indicators. We inspected 30 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.

The demand on the service was so high at times and the capacity exceptionally constrained as a result that despite best efforts, staff were not always able to provide satisfactory care, especially for those patients waiting for treatment in the waiting rooms. However, patients who had been admitted to the majors department received good care and treatment that followed evidence-based practice, although because of long waits for treatment outcomes were not always positive. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate but could not consistently provide the best person-centred care or maintain patients’ privacy and dignity due to the demands placed on them. The department and staff were well-led by strong leaders who embodied the cultures and values of their workforce. However, due to constraints across the whole health and care system, leaders could not always make improvements to the service to provide the best safe and effective care that was responsive and met people’s needs.

We found 5 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing, premises and equipment, dignity and respect, and person-centred care.

At this latest assessment of University Hospital in Coventry we reviewed 4 service groups and aggregated the ratings from our previous assessments of 9 service groups. Although some of the services are rated as requires improvement, the overall rating for University Hospital remains good.

We inspected the Maternity service at University Hospital Coventry 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 location at this inspection. The previous rating of Good remains. 

How we carried out the inspection   

During our inspection of maternity services at University Hospital Coventry we spoke with 35 staff including leaders, obstetricians, midwives and maternity support workers.

We visited all areas of the unit including the antenatal clinic, antenatal ward, maternity triage, labour ward, birth centre, day assessment and postnatal ward We reviewed the environment, maternity policies while on site as well as reviewing 8 maternity records. Following the inspection, we reviewed data we had requested from the service to inform our judgements.

We ran a poster campaign during our inspection to encourage pregnant women and mothers who had used the service to give us feedback regarding care. We received 4 pieces of feedback and spoke with 7 women on the day of our inspection. We did not identify a theme or trend. 

The trust provided maternity services at hospital and local community services and 5,267 babies were born in the trust during 2021.The hospital is also a tertiary referral centre for complex maternal and fetal indications.

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.

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

The safe key question improved to good.
Effective key question remained as good.
Caring key question remained as good.
Responsive remained as requires improvement.
Well led key question improved to good.
All eight core services are rated as good overall.
The additional service of neurosurgery was rated as requires improvement overall.

We inspected eight core services and two additional services (neurosurgery and diagnostic imaging) at this hospital. Whilst we rate additional services, we do not include them in the overall aggregation of ratings for a hospital, or at trust level.

Our rating of core services stayed the same. We rated the hospital as requires improvement overall because:

Our rating for safe stayed as required improvement. Urgent and emergency care and maternity were rated as requires improvement. Medical care, surgery, critical care, services for children and young people, end life care and outpatients were all rated as good, showing improvements from the last inspection overall.
Our rating for effective improved to good overall. Critical care was rated as requires improvement. Urgent and emergency care, medical care, surgery, maternity, children and young people and end of life care were all rated as good, showing improvements from the last inspection overall. We inspect but do not rate effective for outpatients.
Our rating for caring stayed as good. All services were rated as good, apart from end of life care, which was rated as outstanding.
Our rating for responsive stayed as required improvement. Urgent and emergency care, surgery and outpatients were rated as requires improvement. Medical care, critical care, maternity, children and young people and end of life care were all rated as good, showing improvements from the last inspection overall.
Our rating for well led improved and was rated as good. Urgent and emergency care, medical care, surgery, maternity, children and young people, end of life care and outpatients were rated as good showing improvements from the last inspection overall. Critical care was rated as requires improvement.

Our ratings of the additional services were:

Overall, neurosurgery was rated as requires improvement. Safe, effective, responsive and well led were rated as requires improvement. Caring was rated as good.
Overall, diagnostic imaging was rated as good. Safe, caring, responsive and well led were rated as good. We inspect but do not rate effective for this service.

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust is one of the UK’s largest trusts and serves a population of about 1,000,000 across Coventry, Warwickshire and beyond. Inpatient and outpatient services are provided from two hospital sites, University Hospital at Coventry and Hospital of St Cross, at Rugby. In total, the trust has 1,250 beds and provides both elective and emergency care. A major trauma centre, University Hospital specialises in cardiology, neurosurgery, stroke, joint replacements, in vitro fertilisation and maternal health, diabetes, cancer care and kidney transplants.

During this inspection we only inspected outpatient and diagnostic imaging services provided by University Hospital. This was an unannounced follow up inspection on 28 September 2016, due to the outpatient and diagnostic imaging service being rated ‘inadequate’ for safe in our March 2015 comprehensive inspection.

We did not inspect any other services provided by the trust. Therefore, the overall rating for University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust remains as requires improvement, as per the March 2015 inspection.

Overall, we rated outpatient and diagnostic imaging services at University Hospital as requires improvement with three of the five questions we ask, safe, responsive and well led being judged as requiring improvement.

We rated caring as good. Patients were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.

Our key findings were as follows:

Staff were aware of their responsibilities and understood the need to raise concerns and report incidents. However, we did find that in some areas incidents were not always reported in line with trust policy.
Learning and feedback from incidents was inconsistent. The action taken as a result of some incidents did not always address the cause of the incident.
Governance systems were in place to monitor and assess risk, but these were not always accurately recorded.
In ophthalmology there were medicines that were not securely stored.
Systems in place to prevent and protect people from a healthcare associated infection were not always followed.
There was inconsistent handover of inpatients when they arrived and waited for their radiology investigation or procedure.
Patients were not always kept informed about how long they were expected to wait to be seen in clinic. Some patients arriving for their appointments waited a considerable time to be seen. In ophthalmology patients left the clinic without being seen due to the long waits.
We identified areas in radiology where there was insufficient action taken to maintain patient privacy and dignity.

However, we also found that:

Patients were treated with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
Patients we spoke with felt well informed about their care and treatment.
The trust was generally meeting referral to treatment times.
There were facilities to meet the needs of patients with complex conditions.
Staff described when the duty of candour applied and demonstrated an understanding of when it should be implemented.
Arrangements were in place to safeguard adults and children from abuse.
Staffing levels and skill mix were planned and reviewed so that patients received safe care and treatment. Where there had been staff shortages, we saw no evidence of patients coming directly to harm.
There was a systematic programme of clinical and internal audit.
Staff were encouraged to suggest improvements.
Most staff felt that managers were visible, supportive and approachable.
Staff were proud to work at the hospital and passionate about the care they provided.

There were areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the trust must:

The trust must ensure all medicines are stored in accordance with trust polices and national guidance.

The trust must ensure all incidents are reported in line with trust policy.
The trust must ensure that infection control practices follow trust policy and recommended guidance, including correct hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment.

Ensure there is a robust policy for transporting patients with an infection or who may be at risk of acquiring an infection in the hospital, so that staff are aware that special precautions need to be put in place to protect the patient and the public.
The trust must ensure that there sufficient patient information handed over between clinicians to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the patients is maintained.

In addition the trust should:

The trust should ensure all staff have received their required mandatory training to ensure they are competent to fulfil their role.
The trust should ensure staff receive appraisals which meet the trust target.
The trust should ensure that patients are able to access outpatient services in a timely way for initial assessments, diagnoses and/or treatment, with the aim of meeting trust and national targets.
The trust should ensure that all risks are identified on the risk register and appropriate mitigating actions taken.
The trust should ensure that meeting minutes clearly record recommendations and lessons learnt from incidents.
The trust should ensure equipment is always stored appropriately and fit for use.
The trust should ensure that staff in phlebotomy ask if they have any allergies prior to the application of the cleaning spray.
The trust should ensure that hazardous chemicals are stored in line with Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002.
The trust should ensure that patents privacy and dignity is protected at all times, in particular within radiology.
The trust should minimise the percentage of outpatient clinics cancelled.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust is one of the UK’s largest trusts and serves a population of about 1,000,000 across Coventry, Warwickshire and beyond. Inpatient services are provided from two hospital sites, University Hospital Coventry (the main site) and Hospital of St Cross, Rugby. In total, the trust has 1,250 beds and provides both elective and emergency care. A major trauma centre, University Hospital Coventry specialises in cardiology, neurosurgery, stroke, joint replacements, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and maternal health, diabetes, cancer care and kidney transplants.

We carried out this inspection as part of our comprehensive inspection programme between 10 and 13 March 2015.

Overall, we rated University Hospital Coventry as ‘requires improvement’. We have judged the service as ‘good’ for caring. We found that services were provided by dedicated, caring staff. Patients were treated with dignity and respect and were provided with appropriate emotional support. However, improvements were needed to ensure that services were safe, effective, responsive to people’s needs and well-led.

Our key findings were as follows:

Cleanliness and infection control

Patients in children’s services, the emergency department (ED) and maternity received care in a clean, hygienic and suitably maintained environment. Staff were aware of and applied infection prevention and control guidelines.
We observed good practices in relation to hand hygiene and ‘bare below the elbow’ guidance and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons, while delivering care in children’s services, the ED and maternity. These practices were not so well embedded in the critical care, medical and surgery departments, where examples of poor infection control practice were observed.
There was a pre-admission service within the outpatients department; however, no preoperative MRSA screening was undertaken during this consultation. Screening was done by the preoperative nurse, who only saw those patients who were a higher anaesthetic or operative risk, for example, patients with co-existing morbidities. Women were also not routinely screened for MRSA before elective caesarean section in maternity. This meant that not all patients undergoing elective surgery were screened preoperatively. Screening has been a Department of Health recommendation since 2007.
Examples of poor infection control practices were observed in the radiology department. These included:
- Poor hand hygiene with staff not washing hands between touching patients, bedpans and clean linen.
- No robust training in scrub skills for nurses to support advanced interventional procedures. The nurses confirmed that although they had ‘on the job’ training, they were not aware of any advanced scrub practitioners from the operating department auditing or supervising the radiology staff’s scrub skills. This meant that there was no assurance that best practice with regards to infection control was being complied with and could have increased the risk of patients being exposed to an infection.
- No robust procedure for identifying and isolating patients who attended the department who had a known infection that could contaminate other patients.
- The bed wait area in CT and MRI was just large enough for three beds, separated by curtains. Again this was an infection control risk for patients who were in such close contact with another patient.

Records

The standard of record completion varied across the services. In emergency services, critical care, surgical, neonatal and maternity services, we found that medical and nursing notes were structured, legible, complete and up to date.
On the medical wards we found gaps in the completion of records relating to sepsis recognition, venous thromboembolism assessments, fluid balance charts, comfort rounds and individualised care plans.
Records in most departments were stored securely in line with requirements. However, on some medical wards we found records to be easily accessible to others visiting. For example, on one ward, we saw that five sets of care records were left on a table in one of the bays, instead of being kept in a secure area.
44% (13 out of 29) of ‘do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’ (DNA CPR) forms were incorrectly completed or had information missing. Incomplete or incorrect DNA CPR forms can lead to patients being subjected to attempts to resuscitate them when this is not appropriate or in line with their wishes.

Staffing levels

The trust used the nationally recognised Safer Nursing Care Tool along with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance to assess required nursing staff levels.
Vacancy rates, staff turnover and sickness were audited monthly. Daily checks were completed across all areas to check staffing requirements and availability against gaps in the rota. Vacant shifts were offered to bank or agency staff.
All staff we spoke with, from the management team to healthcare assistants, recognised nursing recruitment as a major safety risk to the service. It was captured on the directorate risk register. Vacancy rates across the core services ranged from 13% in the surgical teams to 17% in the Cardiac Critical Care Unit (CCCU).
The trust told us they were currently undertaking significant investment in attracting the right nursing staff to its hospitals and becoming an employer of choice. A rolling recruitment programme was ongoing with advertising websites, local media and universities. Plans were also in place to widen the recruitment drive internationally. All ward-based staff were aware of these initiatives and supported them. There was general agreement that recruitment and retention of nursing staff were seen as a priorities by the trust.
We spoke with two medical students, who told us, “It’s a really positive experience working here. We get high-quality training and are integrated into the team.”
In the ED, consultants were available and visible, and junior medical and nursing staff confirmed that this was usual.
There was appropriate consultant obstetric cover on the labour ward weekly. This was consistently reported as 96 direct cover hours. The maternity service staffing levels for obstetric anaesthetists and their assistants were in line with Safer Childbirth (RCOG, 2007) recommendations.
Care and treatment within the CCCU were led by consultant cardiac surgeons with support and advice, when required, from intensive care consultants. However, the arrangements for senior medical cover did not meet the requirements of core standards in intensive care.

Mortality rates

Our ‘Intelligent Monitoring’ report of December 2014 showed that there was no evidence of risk for summary hospital mortality level indicators or for hospital standardised mortality ratio indicators. However, there was risk in: in-hospital mortality associated with dermatological conditions and trauma and orthopaedic procedures and conditions, and elevated risk for nephrological conditions.

Incidents

The trust used a centralised web-based reporting system for staff to report incidents and near-misses. Staff who we spoke with during our visit included newly appointed junior staff who confirmed they knew how to use the system to report incidents.
The trust’s attitude to the reporting of incidents was one of learning. Staff were encouraged to report incidents in the hope that lessons could be learned and further incidents prevented. This led to a high volume of incidents being recorded.
Staff in the GP assessment unit said that, although they were aware of the incident reporting system, they did not feel confident in completing incident reports because they felt that “nothing gets done”.
The trust told us each incident was managed through the trust’s significant incident group, which met on a weekly basis to review all serious incidents, monitor ongoing investigations and approve investigation reports. Trust root cause analysis leads were appointed to manage the investigations and actions were assigned to address the issues.
Mortality and morbidity reviews were undertaken and discussed at the quality improvement and patient safety meetings. Minutes of meetings we reviewed showed that, when needed, actions were taken to improve practice.

Nutrition and hydration

The trust had a rotational menu offering a wide variety of hot and cold choices and cultural needs were catered for: menu sheets took account of cultural and dietary requirements.
Patients with specialist needs in relation to eating and drinking were supported by dieticians and by the speech and language therapy team. Red tray liners were used to help staff identify those patients who required support.
The patient records we reviewed included an assessment of patients’ nutritional requirements based on the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST). We observed on the medical wards that fluid balance charts were used to monitor patients’ hydration status. However, the records seen on two wards did not include the totals for ease of information for staff reviewing details on the MUST.
The trust used national guidance for parenteral and enteral nutrition. Policies were in place to help patients who were unable to take oral nutrition or fluids to be given specialist feeds until they could be seen by a dietician. Patient records we looked at confirmed that these policies were in use. This meant that patients were protected against the risk of malnourishment.
We noted that drinks and sandwich packs were available to patients in the ED. Patients admitted to the observation ward were provided with a full meal service in line with other ward areas within the trust. We saw patients waiting on trolleys in corridors in adult majors being offered drinks.
As well as mandatory training, catering staff received annual training from the dieticians.

Medicines management

The systems in place for the management and storage of drugs, including controlled drugs and oxygen, were inconsistent throughout the trust. In children’s and young people’s services, outpatients, critical care, medical services and the ED, drugs were stored and maintained in line with regulations.
In maternity we saw that community midwives were carrying medication without proper storage facilities, and that epidural drugs were overstocked and had been stored not only in an ‘epidural-only cupboard’ but also in a neighbouring cupboard.
There were particular medicines management issues in the surgery wards and theatres, where we saw a drugs cabinet in one theatre had been forced open and could not be secured. This cabinet had been taken out of use. We saw packs of medication, which should have been in drugs cabinets, left out in theatres because there was insufficient space in the cabinets for the quantities to be stored. We asked a member of staff how they would know if drugs had gone missing because the area was unattended during operating procedures; they told us there would be no way to tell if stock had been taken. We also observed out-of-date intravenous fluids ready for use, and oxygen cylinders attached to anaesthetic trolleys that were out of date.
On the surgical wards we also found some patients who were in pain and had not been given their prescribed drugs when they needed them. Staff reported having been unable to give a diabetic patient insulin because the drug was not available.
Anticipatory prescribing in end of life care was common, in line with best practice. This meant that pain relief and other medication could be started quickly if patients became unwell.
In the critical care unit we observed that intravenous fluid bags were used for preparing intravenous injection/infusions for more than one patient and used for up to 24 hours. This process had not been risk assessed and no protocol was available. There was a risk that the bags could be contaminated by poor infection control practices, or maliciously while left unattended on trolleys on the units. This practice was escalated to the trust executive team during the inspection and we were assured that this practice had stopped and would not recommence until there were suitable and appropriate assurances in place.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

Outstanding practice in respect of trauma care: for example, the fracture patient pathway that encompassed effective pain management, and integrated daily and weekend physiotherapy sessions to develop improved outcomes for patients.
The trust was working to improve the experience of older patients. Initiatives included blue pillowcases for patients with dementia, the screening of all patients aged 75 and over for dementia and the development of a ‘care bundle’.
The trust was using the ‘M’ technique as a means of holistic communication by touching the hands and feet of older people. It included the repetition of stroking and conventional massage through slow, constant and rhythmical pressure.
The head of midwifery had won the Healthcare Hero and Lifetime Achievement Award 2013/14 at the Coventry Telegraph’s Pride of Coventry and Warwickshire Community Awards ceremony.
The specialist bereavement midwife had received the National Maternity Support Foundation Award for Bereavement Care at the Royal College of Midwives Annual Midwifery Awards 2015. They had provided sensitive photographs for parents who had lost their baby in late pregnancy or soon after birth.
The trust had a well-developed research programme and good links with local universities. There were excellent multidisciplinary education facilities that we observed being well used

However, there were also areas of poor practice where the trust needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the trust MUST:

The trust must improve the ability of the emergency department to consistently respond safely to the demands placed on it and to respond to patient needs in a timely way once they have arrived at the hospital and in a way that promotes patients’ privacy and dignity.
The trust must ensure that there are sufficient numbers of suitably skilled, qualified and experienced staff, in line with best practice and national guidance, including Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training.
The trust must ensure all staff have a clear understanding of Mental Capacity Act 2005 and deprivation of liberties as they apply in practice to the service provided.
The trust must review and reinforce staff knowledge of the ‘Assessing mental health in ED’ policy in order to better support staff to protect the rights of patients when any restraint power is used.
Review medicines management within the medical division to ensure that controlled medicines are stored securely.
The trust must ensure the practice of multi-use administration of intravenous infusions is stopped until assurance can be made that it is safe and appropriate practice.
The trust should must that people who use services and others are protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management and storage of medicines. The trust should ensure that there is a system in place to prevent medicines of different patients being confused and/or ensure that patients receive or have access to all their medication when it was required.
The trust should implement robust processes in place to ensure that intravenous fluid expiry dates were checked to ensure that they were within date prior to be administered.
Ensure all patients attending for elective operations, including caesarean section, are routinely screened for MRSA before surgery.
Ensure that its systems to review equipment and audit compliance are effective so far as they relate to checking resuscitation equipment and medical gases.
Ensure there is a robust policy for transporting patients with an infection or who may be at risk of acquiring an infection in the hospital, so that staff are aware that special precautions need to be put in place to protect the patient and the public.
The trust should ensure that ‘Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’ (DNA CPR) forms are completed accurately.

Action the trust SHOULD take to improve:

The trust should manage the expectations of the ambulance services in respect of corridor nurse assessment and care while they are queuing for clinical handover with patients.
The trust should adopt a more effective approach to keeping patients informed while they are waiting in the emergency department.
Should take suitable arrangements are in place to respond appropriately to any allegation of abuse in order to safeguard service users against the risk of abuse and that safeguarding concerns are reported to the local safeguarding authority in line with best practice requirements.
Should ensure consistency in the use of the World Health Organization (WHO) surgical safety checklist, including standardising practice in posting identification of patients and procedures within theatres. This is something that is required as part of regulation 9(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. (ii) Planning the delivery of care and where appropriate treatment in such a way as to ensure the welfare and safety of the service user and (iii) to reflect published research evidence and guidance issued by the appropriate professional and expert bodies as to good practice. However it was considered that it would not be proportionate for the finding to result in a judgement of a breach of the Regulation overall at the location.
Ensure that planning of care reflects all the needs of the patient, including any comorbidities or pre-existing issues. This is something that is required as part of regulation 9(1)(b)(ii) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. (ii) Planning the delivery of care and where appropriate treatment in such a way as to ensure the welfare and safety of the service user. However it was considered that it would not be proportionate for the finding to result in a judgement of a breach of the Regulation overall at the location.
Review the admission process for the GP Assessment Unit to ensure that patients are appropriately referred to the service.
Ensure that the access and flow of medical patients are improved, and delayed patient discharges managed appropriately.
CCCU should contribute data to the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC), to ensure that comparisons and assurances could be made that the unit performed favourably with other critical care units.
Improve arrangements for the handover between the critical care outreach team and the hospital at night team to ensure that deteriorating patients receive safe care.
The number of practice development nurses should be increased to reflect core standards for intensive care units.
Medical staffing in the cardiac critical care unit should meet the requirements of the intensive care core standards.
Ensure all outpatient staff complete their mandatory training.
Review discharge procedures for both rapid discharge, (in particular to Warwickshire) and routine discharge procedures for palliative care patients in the last year of life.
Consider clearly defining medical and nursing management roles in the supportive and specialist palliative care service.
The trust should support staff and develop their skills in promoting and creating personalised care plans for end of life care based on the individual preferences of patients and their families.
Ensure that doctors (outside of the palliative care team) feel confident in discussing end of life care and DNA CPR decisions with patients.
Consider how the waiting areas, particularly for radiology ‘bed’ areas could be used more appropriately.
Consider the need for a more suitable waiting area for ambulatory patients whilst awaiting a CT/MRI.
Plan caesarean section lists before the day of operation whenever possible.
Ensure that staff carry out and document assessments of patients’ needs so that the planning and delivery of care meet those needs.
Ensure that there is handover of ‘bed’ patients to staff when they arrive from the ward into the radiology department.
Ensure there is a process in place so that vulnerable patients waiting for imaging are cared for as their needs dictate and this is recorded.
Ensure the nurses in imaging receive adequate scrub training from someone qualified to do so and that it is maintained.
Ensure all staff complete their mandatory training, particularly child safeguarding training, level 3 in the ED. Ensure that community midwives receive regular and formal safeguarding supervision.
Ensure that fluid scores are completed and recorded appropriately so that patients who are at risk of dehydration are correctly escalated.
Provide information leaflets and signs in other languages and easy-read formats.
Develop robust processes to meet the estimated discharge dates.
Ensure they have robust arrangements in place to meet referral-to-treatment times.
Make sure that learning from incidents is shared across all staff groups.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

During our inspection we visited a range of wards. These included the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E), the Medical Assessment Unit (MAU) (a unit which provides rapid assessment and treatment of a wide range of medical conditions ' patients may then go home, or be referred to another medical ward), Ward 1(Endocrine conditions), Ward 21 (general medicine) Ward 32 (ENT(Ear Nose and Throat)),Ward 33 (Urology), Wards 40 and 41 (Stroke and age related), and Ward 53 (Orthopaedics).

We looked at how dementia care was supported in wards where there may be a higher number of people admitted with dementia (for example Ward 40, Stroke and age related) and wards where there would be typically less people with dementia related needs, (for example, Ward 1, endocrine (diabetes, thyroid) conditions).

We spoke with 19 patients who had dementia or possible dementia and six relatives. We spoke with 29 staff that were on duty in all of the wards we visited and we spoke with the hospital's team of dementia specialists. We also looked at the treatment records of five patients with dementia or who were being assessed for dementia.

We left comment cards and boxes for people to post their comments on each ward we visited. After a week we collected the cards. We received 25 CQC comments cards, and five of the hospital's comment cards. All people who wrote comments were positive about the care provided by staff but there were some concerns expressed about staffing levels.

We saw patients with dementia were placed on the hospital's 'Forget me not' dementia care pathway. This meant on admission and throughout their time at the hospital, staff would know they had dementia and provide the appropriate support.

We saw there were good systems in place to assess and support people who had no formal diagnosis of dementia, but who were confused or who had difficulty with communication.

We saw patients were kept safe because their risks were appropriately and sensitively managed. For example, the hospital used pictorial images on the patient board or above the patient's bed to alert staff whether the patient had dementia or was at risk of falls.

We saw staff worked well with other departments in the hospital to ensure all medical, social and psychological needs were met. We saw staff worked closely with other services to ensure specialist assessments were completed and people were discharged from hospital safely.

All staff we spoke with understood the importance of meeting the needs of people with dementia. We saw staff were committed to making the hospital a dementia friendly place.

We observed staff supporting patients with dementia. We saw staff worked with patients in a caring and compassionate way.

Patients and their relatives told us,

'X's care has been first class. My family and I have felt quality of care is very good. He has been treated with compassion, respect and dignity.'

'We have seen very good care in this hospital and patients are looked after, treated well and it has a good environment.'

Services for people with dementia were well led. We saw the hospital board was fully supporting the specialist dementia team to respond to and improve the services they offer to people with dementia.

During this inspection we focused on inpatient areas where patients could expect to stay for a short period of time so their condition could be monitored and a decision made about their treatment and care needs.

We visited the Clinical Decisions Unit (CDU) and Ward 12, an observation ward. We also spent a short time on Wards 3, 10, 33 and 43, which we visited to speak with people who had been moved to these wards from the short stay areas in the hospital. We spoke with people in the hospitality lounge who were waiting to go home.

During the course of the day we spoke with 18 patients and two of their relatives. We pathway tracked four patients to look at their experience of the care and support they received. We spoke with 15 staff from various disciplines. We met with the bed management team, the safeguarding team and the trust's quality and governance team.

We found that staff worked hard to uphold the dignity and promote the privacy of patients.

Patients we spoke with were satisfied with the care they received. Their comments included,

'Couldn't wish for anything better here.'

'Excellent. Can't fault the staff. They are so kind.'

We found that staff at University Hospital were given the training and support they needed to meet patients' needs effectively.

We found evidence that staff took appropriate action when they suspected abuse or neglect.

The trust had systems in place to review the quality of the service they provided to patients.

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.

Information shared by West Midlands Ambulance Trust raised concerns about the number of times ambulances failed to achieve a 30 minute 'turnaround time' when they took patients to University Hospital, Coventry.

We undertook this review of compliance because we wanted to check if the information we received had any direct impact on patients using University Hospital.

We made an unannounced visit to the adult Emergency Department at University Hospital, Coventry on 28 December 2012.

We observed the experience of people attending the department.

During our visit to the Emergency Department we spoke with four people and three of their relatives about their experience. Their comments included,

'Staff are very good ' they have been very polite, they listened to me and I could see they were interested in their work'.

We spoke with several medical and nursing staff. Their comments included,

'The team is excellent, we work really well together.'

We found that people attending the Emergency Department receive care and support in a safe and timely manner. People's dignity and privacy are respected.

We found there are sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet the health and welfare needs of people attending the Emergency Department.

Overall people were satisfied with the care they received at University Hospital.

People told us that staff were friendly, polite and treated them with respect. People felt that their dignity was upheld and they felt informed about their condition and treatment. Their comments included,

'The staff are polite and respectful.'

'My only concerns have been about my health and when I can go home. I have always had my concerns listened to. They tell me a lot of up to date things about my health.'

'Staff always explain what they're doing and ask if it's alright'

Most people said their nutritional needs and dietary preferences were met. Their positive comments included,

'The food's great. I always get the correct order and staff help me where I need it.

There is always more food than I can eat. It is always warmed nicely but not too hot. We are offered biscuits lots during the day.

However, people who required assistance with eating or drinking sometimes have to wait. People told us,

'I don't need any support with my meals, but I do feel that someone needs to sit with some of the patients who do need help'

'The staff do not ask anyone if they have finished or if they've had enough.'

Similar services nearby...

Wayside House

In Coventry, CV6 6NY
George Eliot NHS Hospital

In Nuneaton, CV10 7RF
Hospital of St Cross

In Rugby, CV22 5PX