Fairfield Independent Hospital

Updated 25 January 2017

The hospital first opened its doors in 1974 as a home for the elderly. In 1975 the hospital opened with one operating theatre and twenty beds and became more focussed on surgery and outpatient treatment. Following a very successful fundraising appeal in 1977 work started on building an extension to provide more operating theatres, outpatient facilities and more bed rooms.

Outpatient and inpatient services are provided to patients of 16 years of age and above. The majority of treatment provided is done through a contract with the NHS. In addition, private treatment is also provided.

The hospital is located in a rural setting in St Helens. It has good transport links to both Liverpool and Manchester and is easily accessible via the motorway network. The hospital is set in landscaped gardens and there is free car parking.

The registered manager of the hospital is Cheryl Nolan, Chief Executive Officer who has been in post for eight years.

We inspected all services that were provided by Fairfield Independent Hospital. Our inspection was part of our on going programme of comprehensive Independent Health Care inspections.

Additionally, there are services provided by other registered organisations at the hospital which we did not inspect as part of this inspection. However, we looked at the service level agreements that were in place for these and how these were being managed.

Updated 25 January 2017

Fairfield Independent Hospital is a charitable, non-profit making organisation based in St Helens, Merseyside and is part of the Guy Memorial Home Limited.

Fairfield Independent Hospital is registered to provide the following Regulated Activities:

• Diagnostic and screening procedures.

• Surgical procedures.

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The hospital’s senior management team consists of the Board of Trustees, the Chief Executive, and a team of hospital managers.

We inspected the hospital on 26 and 27 July 2016 on an announced visit. On 10 August 2016, we carried out an unannounced inspection of the hospital.

We inspected all services that were provided by Fairfield Independent Hospital. Our inspection was part of our ongoing programme of comprehensive Independent Health Care inspections.

Additionally, there are services provided by other registered organisations at the hospital which we did not inspect as part of this inspection. However, we looked at the service level agreements that were in place for these and how these were being managed.

We rated Fairfield Independent Hospital as ‘Good’ overall. We rated both surgery and outpatients and diagnostics as good in safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. However, this excluded effective in outpatients and diagnostics as we do not currently rate this.

Are services safe at this hospital

We rated safety as ‘good’ in both surgery and outpatients and diagnostic imaging because;

• The hospital had systems in place to manage risk. This included policies describing how to measure and escalate risk as well as reporting incidents. Staff that we spoke to understood how to use the paper based system and were able to give us examples of incidents that they would report. Staff told us that when they had reported incidents they had received feedback from these.

• The hospital had appropriate infection prevention and control procedures in place. There had been no reported incidents of hospital acquired infections between April 2015 and March 2016.

• We found that there were sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled staff to care for patients that were receiving care and treatment. A nursing acuity tool had been used to calculate the current staffing establishment and a weekly planning meeting was held to calculate how many staff were required. We observed staff handovers and found that they were robust and provided continuity of care for patients.

• Staff in theatre followed the ‘five steps to safer surgery’ and on most occasions the ‘WHO’ checklist was followed and completed appropriately.

• There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place to keep patients safe. There was a designated safeguarding lead and there were appropriate numbers of staff trained in safeguarding. Staff we spoke to were able to give us examples of what would constitute a safeguarding referral to be made.

• Patient care was consultant-led and there was 24 hour cover provided by a resident medical officer who was based on site.

Are services effective at this hospital

We inspected but did not rate effective in outpatients and diagnostic imaging. We rated effective as ‘good’ in surgery because;

• The hospital provided care and treatment in line with up to date evidence based practice. We checked a sample of clinical guidelines and found them to be appropriately referenced against up to date guidance on most occasions.

• Patient outcomes were regularly monitored through compliance with key performance indicators and regular data submissions were provided for benchmarking. Records indicated that patient outcomes were similar to other services nationally.

• Local audits were also completed on a regular basis so that performance and compliance in certain areas were monitored and improved when required.

• There were systems in place to check the competencies of consultants who had applied to work under practicing privileges at the hospital. This process involved any application being agreed by the medical advisory committee.

• Staff received a yearly appraisal in line with the hospital policy.

• The hospital had policies and procedures in place for consent, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty. Consent was sought prior to any treatment and patients were required to sign consent forms, which were then confirmed on the day that patients attended the hospital.

Are services caring at this hospital

We rated caring as ‘good’ in both surgery and outpatients and diagnostic imaging because;

• Staff were caring, compassionate and treated patients with dignity and respect.

• Patients' privacy and dignity were maintained while receiving care and treatment.

• Results from the NHS friends and family test were positive with most patients saying that they would recommend the hospital as a place of treatment.

• Staff ensured that patients were involved in how their care was delivered.

Are services responsive at this hospital

We rated responsive as ‘good’ in both surgery and outpatients and diagnostic imaging because;

• National targets for access to outpatient and diagnostic services had been met consistently between April 2015 and March 2016. Additionally, the hospital aimed to see 90% of patients within 30 minutes of arrival. This target had been exceeded between January 2016 and June 2016.

• Referral to treatment times for surgery between April 2015 and March 2016 had also been consistently met.

• Services were mostly delivered in a way that met the needs of patients who attended the hospital.

• A dementia strategy was used to support patients living with dementia. Some hospital facilities had been adapted to meet the needs of patients living with dementia and the hospital ensured that appropriate support was provided when needed.

• The hospital had a clear admissions policy which meant that they were able to exclude patients who they were not able to provide care and treatment for.

• The hospital had a complaints policy that was followed if concerns were raised. Information was available for patients and relatives describing the complaints process. This also included information about who to contact if it was felt that the response was unsatisfactory.

Are services well-led at this hospital

We rated well-led as ‘good’ in both surgery and outpatients and diagnostic imaging because;

• The hospital had a strategic plan from 2015 to 2020. This plan included a mission and a vision for the hospital.

• Areas for further improvements that the hospital could make had been identified and the management team reviewed this on a regular basis.

• Care and treatment provided was monitored so that gaps were identified and improvements could be made.

• The hospital used a risk management policy and system that identified and scored risks for both outpatient and diagnostics as well as surgery. We found that this process had been followed on most occasions. There were designated members of the management team who had responsibility for managing this.

• There was a governance structure in place that allowed information to be fed up to the appropriate members of the management team. Any concerns, incidents or policies and guidelines waiting for approval were discussed as part of the medical advisory committee meetings.

• Fit and proper persons legislation was taken into consideration when recruiting to the management team or the board of trustees. This included conflict of interests, financial background checks and disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks.

• There was a positive culture within the hospital. Staff that we spoke to were proud to work in the hospital and felt that a good standard of patient care was delivered.

• Leaders were visible throughout the hospital and staff felt well supported.

However, there were also areas of where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

• The hospital should take action to address that not all staff are aware of the policy with regards to female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM should form part of the adult safeguarding policy and not just the children’s safeguarding policy.

• The hospital should take action to ensure all consent forms are fully completed.

• The hospital should take action to provide leaflets to patients that are regularly reviewed, and in date with the latest information.

• Risk assessments should be scored appropriately and where necessary escalated to the senior team.

• Risk assessments for the department should be reviewed to ensure that all areas of the service are considered so that risks can be mitigated, and actions put in place to reduce the impact and severity.

• The hospital should consider patients privacy on booking in to the department as there was no privacy line.

• The hospital should consider providing seating for those patients with mobility difficulties.

• The management team should make sure that all consultants sign to confirm final site marking verification during the ‘sign in’ phase of the WHO checklist.

• The hospital is in the process of becoming JAG accredited for endoscopy services and this is planned for May 2017. The hospital should ensure that the implementation plan is achieved.

• The hospital should ensure that all mandatory training for staff is completed in a timely manner and meets the hospital compliance target as a minimum.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Updated 25 January 2017

Policies and procedures were in place for the prevention and control of infection and to keep people safe.

Care provided was evidence based and followed national guidance.

Quality and performance were monitored and patients’ views were actively sought.

Outpatient and diagnostic services were delivered by caring, committed and compassionate staff.

Patients had a choice of appointments available to them through the ‘choose and book’ service.

Updated 25 January 2017

Patients using the services were protected from avoidable harm and the hospital had safe systems and good practices in place.

We found processes in place to reduce the risk of abuse and avoidable harm in the hospital's inpatient and theatre teams. Information received from the provider prior to our inspection confirmed that training was provided to staff, relating to both vulnerable adult and child safeguarding. The staff we interviewed at our inspection confirmed this. Systems were in place to report and record concerns about patients who were treated.

The staffing levels in both inpatient services and theatres were sufficient to meet the needs of patients and there was access to medical support at all times.