Weymouth Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed 1 quality statement in the effective key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas showed good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. The service was effective. The service planned and delivered care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

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 Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff carried out pre-assessments on patients to check if they had any dietary requirements. Staff took into account people’s cultural and religious dietary requirements, for example kosher and halal meal options were available. Gluten-free options were also available for patients. Chefs were employed who cooked food for patients onsite. A patient we spoke said the facilities and food were good. Patients we spoke with said they was a very nervous patient but felt all the staff were good at calming their fears. Patients stated that their anaesthetist and their surgeon explained everything to them including risks. Patients said that their husband was kept informed. One patient was able to explain why certain procedures had been carried out for example they had an ECG arranged due to high blood pressure. One patients said ‘’the food was excellent. The service received was exceptional, the consultant even contacted me when abroad. The consultant surgeon was excellent and information was given to me by the surgeon.”

The provider’s systems ensure that staff are up-to-date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. We saw evidence that leaders shared updates in policies with staff through posters. Policies that had been recently updated included Management of Hypertension Policy and Working at Heights Policy. We looked at a range of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), such as the SOP for Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management which was due for review in November 2025. The SOP referenced guidance from NICE, The Royal College of Nursing and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Staff were compliant with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines; we observed patient records that showed staff had completed the WHO Five Steps to Safer Surgery checklist. Furthermore, WHO audits showed 100% compliance to the checklist in January 2024.

The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidelines. We looked at a range of corporate policies which were all in date and had clear review dates. We saw that changes made to policies were identified clearly. The polices we looked at included but were not limited to: • Adult safeguarding policy • Central Alerts System policy • COSHH policy • Cyber Security Policy. The hospital followed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2005 (NICE) guidelines. We reviewed the policy for the implementation of NICE guidelines, which was due for review in June 2025. We saw evidence in policies that NICE guidelines were used for routine preoperative tests for elective surgery. Staff told us that they completed audits regularly and checked blood sugar levels for patients who suffered from diabetes in line with NICE guidelines. The provider was compliant with National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures 2 (NatSSIPs) and had created a poster which was a shortened version of the 8 sequential steps to deliver safe invasive procedures for staff. The hospital followed National Patient Safety Alerts (NPSA) and we saw evidence that the hospital had transitioned to NRFit connectors for intrathecal and epidural procedures and delivery of regional blocks as per NPSA recommendations. Managers ensured that actions from patient safety alerts were implemented and monitored. The hospital used the National Early Warning Scores (NEWS2), a standardised assessment for acute illness severity. NEWS2 scores were recorded appropriately in patient care records. The National Joint Registry annual clinical report for financial year 2022-2023 measured 6 indicators and all but 1 indicator was within the expected range. The indicator that was measured worse than expected was the hospital data likability.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.