Bluebell Wood Children's Hospice

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We rated Responsive as good. We assessed two quality statements relating to care provision, integration and continuity and listening to and involving people; The service’s care for children was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The hospice encouraged, recorded, monitored and learned from feedback, complaints and compliments.

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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

Children and families who accessed hospice services could provide feedback online or by using a post-box in the main reception. The service frequently sought feedback from families after stays, interventions, and events, as well as when leads designed or reviewed care services. Family and community feedback surveys were available digitally and in hard copy to increase uptake. Hospice and community staff were encouraged to hand out surveys, which were also freepost return. These surveys included contact details if patients or families wanted to contact staff to highlight any issues. The hospice maintained a compliments log, and families’ social media page where they saw feedback. Leads shared compliments with staff quarterly. Staff deeply appreciated the feedback and comments from families.

The service received one formal complaint from a parent in February 2024 (Ref 2024/01), relating to an incorrect feed being given to her child. The complaint also included a number of historical concerns dating from 2017 to 2019. Leads had investigated the complaint as far as was possible, and provided a full written response to the parent. Learning was in place for the relevant staff member around correct feed administration. Leads had also started a review of second feeds check requirements for non-medical prescribing staff. This was being monitored through the care leadership team (CLT) meetings. The service only received a small number of complaints. Staff understood and followed the service’s clear complaints structure. CQC heard staff ascertained timescales from complainants promptly. The CEO was informed early about any, and to date the service has received no appeals. The governance officer recorded all written feedback, and pulled together any verbal compliments received about the service. Volunteers were sent annual surveys to gather their feedback around how they were supported as well as feedback forms after volunteer events, including celebrations. The service had created a feedback form for volunteers when they finished their role as part of auditing any new volunteer roles. Volunteer supervisors met with the volunteering team so feedback was regularly gained from them as well. Staff actively supported families by leading and contributing to advance care plans (ACPs) including perinatal, for babies, children, and young people (using the national CYPACP forms). Plans allowed families to identify their needs and priorities and staff put measures in place to support these. The service used parallel planning and felt it beneficial when completing all ACPs. This allowed staff to take a dynamic and responsive approach to meeting the needs of children with progressive conditions.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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