Farnham Hospital and Centre for Health

We rated this location as good because:

• Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety and controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. There was appropriate medicines management process in place. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, checked that patients had access to enough food and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it, although some services were reporting high waiting times.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However;

• Managers and team leaders did not ensure that clinical supervision was always recorded in line with policy. It was not clear how the teams identified and recorded personal areas for development through the supervision programme.
• Managers did not always record in staff appraisals the strengths of the appraisee and the areas they needed to improve on, in line with the provider’s overall strategy.
• The service was reporting a high waiting list for podiatry of up to 84 weeks. Staff reported this was as result of podiatry services being suspended during Covid-19 pandemic and national shortage of podiatrists. We were concerned that people who needed the service may not always get timely interventions.
• Rapid response/ intermediate care teams did not ensure that patients were contacted within the 24- 48 hours response time set by commissioners.
• The service was reporting a vacancy rate of 12.2% across all staff group. Staff reported that the teams were quite stretched which had been impacted by sickness and people going on leave. However, staff reported the workload was generally manageable.