Patient Experience Report...Patient Experience Report – May 2019 Page 10 of 26 Theme - mental...

Working together as the Surrey Heartlands Clinical Commissioning Groups

Guildford and Waverley CCG I North West Surrey CCG I Surrey Downs CCG

Patient Experience Report

Quality Committee(s) in Common

May 2019



Patient Experience Report – May 2019 of 26

Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 3

2. SHCCGs Complaints ..................................................................................... 3

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Complaints Policy and Procedures ................................................................ 4

2.3 Quantitative analysis ...................................................................................... 4

2.4 Deadlines for acknowledging and responding to complaints.......................... 6

2.5 Qualitative analysis ........................................................................................ 6

2.6 Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman (PHSO) ........................... 11

2.7 Future complaints handling .......................................................................... 11

3. GP Quality Alerts ......................................................................................... 12

3.1 Guildford and Waverley CCG ....................................................................... 12

3.2 North West Surrey CCG............................................................................... 15

3.3 Surrey Downs CCG ..................................................................................... 16

4. Surveys ........................................................................................................ 16

4.1 Maternity Services Survey 2018 .................................................................. 16

4.2 Community Mental Health Survey 2018 ....................................................... 18

4.3 NHS Staff Survey 2018 ................................................................................ 20

5. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 22

6. Appendix 1 – G&WCCG Quality Alerts Data ................................................ 23

7. Appendix 2 – NWSCCG Quality Alerts Data ................................................ 25




1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide the Quality Committees in Common with:

An overview of complaints received by SHCCGs during 2018/19

An overview of GP quality alerts and themes and actions resulting from these

An overview of the national Maternity Services survey, Community Mental Health

survey and NHS Staff survey findings for Surrey Heartlands providers

Provider patient experience data and themes are reported and triangulated with clinical

effectiveness and safety metrics through the provider assurance reporting dashboard

process and areas of concern are monitored and managed through the Clinical Quality

Review Meetings and supported by contractual activity where appropriate.

2. SHCCGs Complaints

2.1 Introduction

Since April 2018, complaints received by the three CCGs in Surrey Heartlands – Guildford

and Waverley, North West Surrey and Surrey Downs – have been managed within the

Communications and Corporate Affairs Directorate. The Head of Engagement, Diversity

and Inclusion is the designated Complaints Manager.

The CCGs are regulated under the Local Authority Social Services and National Health

Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. Each CCG has a duty to handle

complaints about:

(i) the exercise of its functions; or

(ii) the exercise of any function discharged or to be discharged by it under

arrangements made between it and a local authority under section 75 of the 2006

Act in relation to the exercise of the health-related functions of a local authority

The majority of complaints received by the CCGs are redirected to other bodies, mainly

provider organisations. These regulations stipulate that when it appears to the first body

(in this case, one of the three CCGs) that the complaint, if it had been made to another

responsible body (“the second body”), would be a complaint which would fall to be

handled in accordance with these Regulations by the second body; and the first body

sends the complaint to the second body, the complainant is deemed to have made the

complaint to the second body under these Regulations.

This summary of complaints, received between April 2018 and March 2019, will consider

how well the CCGs have fulfilled their duties under key parts of the above regulations as

well as consider the subjects of complaints and the learning that the CCGs have applied.




This report does not include complaints received by the CCGs regarding Adult Continuing

Health Care provision. These are reported separately by the CHC Team.

2.2 Complaints Policy and Procedures

A Surrey Heartlands CCGs’ Complaints Policy was approved by the Quality Committees

in Common in October 2018. This aligns the processes for handling complaints across

the three CCGs.

The complaints function is delivered by three Patient Experience Coordinators – one

based in each CCG – overseen by the Head of Engagement, Diversity and Inclusion. This

‘team within a team’ interfaces with the CHC Relationship Manager, who manages

complaints and enquiries regarding adult continuing health care.

2.3 Quantitative analysis

Over the year 2018/19 the three CCGs received 230 complaints. Surrey Downs (SD)

CCG received marginally more complaints than Guildford and Waverley (GW) and North

West Surrey (NWS) CCGs.

Chart 1

Of the 230 complaints received by the CCGs, 66 (29%) were directly related to their

commissioning functions, with the majority related to the commissioning function of SD

CCG.

70

76

84

Complaints by CCG

GW CCG NWS CCG SD CCG

http://www.guildfordandwaverleyccg.nhs.uk/website/X09413/files/190211-SHCCGs_CORP05_Complaints_Policy_v1_1_SHCCGs.pdf




Chart 2

Complaints that are received by the CCGs but are not related to their own

commissioning functions are redirected to the responsible organisation for them to

investigate according to their own complaints policy and procedure. In the cases

whereby a complaint is against two or more external organisations, the CCGs offer to

coordinate between organisations to produce a single response. This is termed a

‘Shared’ complaint in Chart 3 below.

In 2018/19, 164 complaints were either redirected (n=136) or a single response was

coordinated by the Patient Experience Coordinators (n= 28). Coordinated, single

responses are more likely to take longer to produce as the CCGs must rely on other

organisations investigating and responding in a timely manner. In all situations, the

PECs maintain regular contact with complainants.

Chart 3

41

1411

SD CCG NWS CCG GW CCG

Complaints related to commissioning functions

46

28

20

1614 13

9 9 8 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Complaints by organisation




As can be seen above, just under a third of complaints received by the CCGs relate to

patient experience in primary care followed by care that spans a number of

organisations and then large acute and mental health trusts. See section 4 below for

qualitative details regarding all complaints.

2.4 Deadlines for acknowledging and responding to complaints

In bringing together the three different systems in place in the three CCGs to form a

single complaints team, it has not been possible to align the reporting on the following

targets:

Sending a written acknowledgement to complainants within three working days of

receipt

Responding to complaints regarding the CCGs’ commissioning responsibilities

within 25 working days of receipt

o The deadline for responses to complaints varied across the three

organisations (from 20 to 25 working days).

As detailed at the end of this report, it will be possible to report on the above in 2019/20

as all complaints are now logged, since 1 April 2019, on Datix. Anecdotally,

acknowledgements were sent to the vast majority of complainants within three working

days of receipt. However, there was variable performance in terms of meeting the

deadline to respond to complainants within 20 or 25 working days. The majority of

delayed responses are in relation to shared complaints, as discussed above. There

have been no complaints from complainants about any delays to responses which in

part is felt to be due to the PECs maintaining contact with them and ensuring they are

kept updated on progress with their complaint.

2.5 Qualitative analysis

Themes

Complaints cover a very broad range of themes, as would be expected given the very

broad range of services that each CCG commissions. All complaints have been themed

using the Health and Social Care Data Collection categories for quarterly complaints

returns from all NHS organisations, as detailed below:

o Access to treatment or drugs

(including decisions made by

Commissioners)

o Admissions, discharge and transfers

excluding delayed discharge due to

absence of care package

o Appointments including delays and

cancellations

o Commissioning Services

o Communications

o Consent to treatment

o End of Life Care




o Facilities Services

o Integrated Care

o Patient Care including Nutrition /

Hydration

o Mortuary and post-mortem

arrangements

o Prescribing errors

o Privacy, dignity and wellbeing

o Restraint

o Staffing numbers

o Transport (Ambulances only)

o Trust Administration

o Values & Behaviours (Staff)

o Waiting Times

o Other

What complainants are most unhappy with has been presented below:




Service area

Complaints into the three CCGs have been analysed to highlight key service areas and

key themes in the charts that follow.

It can be seen that complaints cover a wide range of service areas. However, 50% of

complaints concerned only six service areas:

o Primary care

o Mental health care - adults

o Audiology (hearing service)

o Medicines management

o Acute care

o Dermatology

The remaining 113 complaints covered 40 different service areas. The top four service

areas have been analysed to illustrate key learning.

Primary care

NHS England is the body responsible for investigating complaints about primary care

services should complainants not wish to complain directly to the practice itself. The

proportion of complaints being submitted to the CCGs this year is higher than in previous

years; however, due to this being the first year when complaints are aligned, it is not

possible to say whether this is a trend.




It is recommended that information regarding how to complain about care and treatment

in primary care is more clearly available on the websites and in the waiting rooms of all

member practices. It is a requirement for all providers to enable patients and carers to

make complaints regarding their service and this includes primary care. A contractual

audit of websites is being carried out by the Primary Care Contracting Team in 2019/20

and includes a parameter regarding information about how to submit a complaint being

visible. This will improve the overall handling of complaints in reducing handovers

between organisations.

A breakdown of themes relating to primary care shows that values and behaviours of staff

and communications account for the majority of complaints as opposed to clinical or

diagnostic issues.

Theme Number

Values & Behaviours (Staff) 12

Communications 8

Other 7

Appointments including delays and cancellations 6

Access to treatment or drugs (including decisions made by Commissioners)

5

Privacy, dignity and wellbeing 2

Trust Administration 2

Consent to treatment 1

Patient Care including Nutrition / Hydration 1

Reasons for poor values, behaviours and communications can’t be discerned as these

complaints were redirected to the GP practices for handling.

Mental health care – adults

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SABP) is the main provider of

adult NHS mental health services in Surrey. Several smaller organisations provide

primary psychological therapies (IAPT) whilst Surrey County Council commissions a

range of universal emotional wellbeing and mental health support services.

16 of the 19 complaints received were redirected to SABP for handling. The remaining

three were redirected to smaller providers. The themes related to these complaints were

as follows:




Theme - mental health care - adults Number

Access to treatment or drugs (including decisions made by Commissioners) 5

Commissioning Services 4

Privacy, dignity and wellbeing 3

Values & Behaviours (Staff) 2

Facilities Services 1

Other 1

Patient Care including Nutrition / Hydration 1

Restraint 1

Waiting Times 1

Audiology (hearing services)

In July 2018, SD CCG commissioned a new hearing assessment service for adults.

Shortly afterwards, the CCG began to receive complaints from patients about difficulties

they were experiencing in getting routine, follow-up care for their hearing impairment e.g.

hearing aid repairs.

15 complaints were received in total and it became apparent following internal

investigation that the contract that had been issued via the Any Qualified Provider model,

had not included follow-up care within its service specification for providers. Action was

taken by the Planned Care commissioning team in Surrey Downs to secure the follow-up

clinics and repairs for existing patients and patients calling the CCG with the same

problems were redirected to the Referral Support Service where appointments were

arranged.

Although small in number, these 15 complaints accounted for a large proportion of time

in handling and working out what had gone wrong with the commissioning model. There

is a great deal of learning that has been taken on board by the commissioning team to

inform future procurements that should ensure all patients are considered when

developing new models of care.

At the same time, the Local Medical Committee advised GP practices that micro-suction

(or ear syringing) was not included as an essential primary care service in the GMS GP

contract. Following the issuing of this advice, the CCGs received five complaints from

patients and relatives. Some of these patients were also affected by the contractual

change described above.

Both these themes were reported to the relevant planned care and primary care

commissioning teams to inform future commissioning.




Medicines management

11 of the 13 complaints regarding medicines were related to whether or not a particular

medication was available on prescription or not. Three complaints related to access to

Freestyle Libre, a new technology for people with type 1 diabetes. There was no

commonality to the remaining complaints. All complaints were handled by the CCGs’

Medicines Optimisation teams of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.

Decisions regarding the prescribing status of different medicines across Surrey’s CCGs

are overseen by a Surrey-wide committee and published on the Surrey Prescribing

Advisory Database (PAD). This has proven to be a helpful resource for these complaints.

Being able to direct patients and complainants to a website that shows the transparency

of the decision-making is very helpful and should be replicated in other areas e.g.

publishing details of QIPP programmes.

2.6 Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman (PHSO)

No complaints handled by the CCGs in 2018/19 were referred to the PHSO.

2.7 Future complaints handling

All complaints received by the three CCGs since 1 April 2019 are being logged onto the

Datix software system using the Complaints module following training of the complaints

team. This will make analysis of complaints much simpler in 2019/20. It is therefore

recommended that summaries of complaints be included in the six monthly Patient

Experience report.

As quality surveillance is explored at the Integrated Care System level, there is much that

could be gained by developing a system-wide complaints surveillance approach. CCGs

only receive a proportion of overall complaints about care and treatment in Surrey

Heartlands. It is recommended that complaints monitoring is included in the planned

changes to quality surveillance at the ICS level.



3. GP Quality Alerts

3.1 Guildford and Waverley CCG

The Guildford and Waverley quality portal is managed by the Surrey Heartlands

CCGs Quality (safety) team. A summary of findings from the alerts received during

Quarter 3 and Quarter 4 (October 2018 – March 2019) is outlined below and some

additional charts are provided in appendix 1.

Key points to note from Q3 and Q4 2018/19

A total of 40 alerts were received through the quality portal.

Cranleigh Medical Practice submitted the most alerts (12), followed by

Binscombe Medical Centre (5).

There were 10 quality alerts received from GP’s outside of G&WCCG. The

majority of the out of area alerts originate from GP’s within the Hampshire &

Isle of Wight Partnership of Clinical Commissioning Groups.

The majority of alerts received relate to the Royal Surrey County Hospital

(RSCH).

Issues relating to ‘referrals’ (30%) were raised most often, followed by ‘other’

(25%).




Many of the alerts received relate to individual patient queries, however the following

table presents a summary of alerts that may influence general patient experience.

Provider Description of Issue Action Taken

RSCH Delay in GP receiving patient’s clinic letter. Patent attended clinic on 11th September 18 but letter not typed until 19th October 18.

RSCH confirmed that the delay was due to staff shortages. However, they have advised that they are working hard to address issues and reduce delays and have already made significant improvements.

RSCH GP concerned that outpatient phlebotomy service are displaying posters that inform patients that they can go to their GP surgeries to have blood tests.

The phlebotomy service confirmed that they do not routinely redirect outpatients to GP services. They did however create the poster to provide alternative drop-in-service options for GP patients and to try and reduce long wait times for the service. The service has now removed the poster and confirmed that they are working hard to improve the service and have recently extended opening times and opened a second additional phlebotomy room. However despite this, they are still experiencing long waits and poor patient experience. On further discussion with the phlebotomy service, they have confirmed that they are setting up a project to look at how the RSCH delivers phlebotomy services and are currently in the process of arranging the first set of meetings.

RSCH Patient attended GP surgery for removal of cannula which had not been removed on discharge from hospital.

Following this alert the RSCH have reinforced the use of day of discharge checklist in order to ensure processes and checks on discharge are not missed. This serves as a prompt for staff and at the same time provides them with supporting documentation on discharge.




SABPT GP raising concern regarding the rising waiting list times for the ADHD service for adults.

The current waiting time is around 20 months. To reduce the waiting list SABPT have – • Recruited to a band 6 health facilitator role to monitor annual reviews. • Recruited to a consultant for 2 days in Surrey to complete NPA’s and follow ups. • Revised the pathways into the service and screening process to reduce the wait time for people with previous diagnosis who just need a review and medication reintroduced. • Started transition clinics for young people who were open to CAMHS along with CAMHS colleagues to reduce their wait time and provide a more seamless transition into adult services. • The Lead Consultant Psychiatrist has offered some advice and guidance sessions to GP’s to prevent the need for a referral. • Utilised opt in letters which offer choice of appointment time and location to reduce the DNA rate and therefore the waiting time by enabling them to discharge people who do not wish to take up an appointment.

RSCH GP concerned that RSCH outpatient booking line may be informing patients that if they require a quicker appointment, they will need to contact their GP to request this, giving the patient false expectations.

RSCH have confirmed that they have reiterated to the outpatient booking team that under no circumstances should they inform the patient that the GP can book quicker appointments. The patient should only contact the GP to expedite the appointment if they feel it is more urgent than previously discussed.




3.2 North West Surrey CCG

In NWSCCG, GPs use ‘Talk to Us’ a web based form that is completed online. The

form generates an email which is sent to a NWSCCG email inbox which was

previously monitored by the Customer Care Team at the CCG. From March 2019 the

Quality (safety) team have taken over management of the process.

A summary of findings from the alerts received during Quarter 3 and Quarter 4,

2018/19 is outlined below and some additional charts are provided in appendix 2.


A total of 27 alerts were received through ‘Talk to Us’.

Shepperton Medical Practice submitted the most alerts (18), followed by

Chobham and West End Surgeries (3).

The majority of alerts received relate to Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS

Foundation Trust (ASPH).

Issues relating to ‘admin’ (10) were raised most often, followed by ‘referrals’

(5).

Many of the alerts received relate to individual patient queries, however the following

table presents a summary of alerts that may influence general patient experience.

Provider Description of Issue Action Taken

Care Home

Care home informed GP that their nurses are not trained to give flu jabs. GP requested guidance on the matter as other care homes within their area provide flu jabs.

Surrey Heartlands Medicines Management team responded to confirm that the GP practice is responsible for ensuring their eligible patients receive the flu vaccine. However, they may use other providers to achieve this but the clinical responsibility would remain with the practice. If the practice wishes to sub contract this service, they need to ensure staff have the necessary skills and training in place. This would not be a service commissioned by the CCG.

ASPH GP concerned that some midwives who are arranging blood tests for patients are selecting GPs who have previously retired from the practice, consequently results are being sent to dormant inboxes.

Surrey Heartlands Primary Care team have been asked to look into this to ensure that GPs who have left practices have their inboxes deactivated so that results cannot be sent to them.




3.3 Surrey Downs CCG

The process at Surrey Downs CCG involves GPs completing a Quality Alert Form

which is emailed via nhs.net directly to the relevant Trust/provider, as opposed to

going through the CCG. Epsom and St Helier (ESTH) report on the alerts they have

received through their Clinical Quality Review Meetings. The latest reports available

for ESTH cover Q2 and Q3 (July – December 2018).


The reports provided to the Clinical Quality Review Meeting cover all CCGs

the Trust provides services to and not just Surrey Downs CCG.

A total of 74 alerts were received by ESTH, however only 10 of these related

to Surrey Downs CCG.

Out of the 10 alerts, issues relating to ‘results/tests’ (3) were raised most

often, followed by ‘medication’ (2).

The Ashley Centre Surgery raised the majority of these alerts.

4. Surveys

4.1 Maternity Services Survey 2018

In January 2019 the Care Quality Commission (CQC) published the results of their

2018 Maternity Services survey. The survey looked at the experiences of women

who gave birth in February 2018. There were 17,611 participants, with a response

rate of 37%.

“Overall, women reported positive experiences for many areas of their maternity care in 2018, this includes:

being asked how they feel emotionally during antenatal care feeling listened to by midwives during antenatal check-ups being spoken to in a way they understood during labour and birth having confidence and trust in the staff caring for them being treated with respect and dignity their partner (or someone else close to them) being involved during labour

and birth

However, while there had been small improvements across most questions from 2013 to 2017, very few questions showed this trend continuing between 2017 and 2018, with some questions showing a decline.

This includes women’s experiences of:




being given enough information about emotional changes which may be experienced after giving birth

being visited by a midwife at home after giving birth seeing a midwife often enough at home after giving birth staff awareness of the mother and baby’s medical history being given enough information about their physical recovery after giving

birth”

Source: https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/surveys/maternity-services-survey-2018

The following table provides a summary of patient responses to the survey for Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (ASPH), Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (ESTH) and Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RSCH). Patients were asked questions about different aspects of their care and treatment and based on those responses the CQC gave each NHS trust a score out of 10 for each question. Each trust also received a rating of ‘Better, ‘About the same’ or ‘Worse’ to illustrate how they compared on each question to most other trusts that took part in the survey.

ASPH ESTH RSCH

Advice at the start of labour 9.2 8.9 8.8

Moving during labour 8.2 8.0 8.5

Skin to skin contact 9.5 8.7 9.4

Partner involvement 9.7 9.6 9.7

Staff introduction 9.2 9.0 9.4

Being left alone 8.1 7.1 8.2

Raising concerns 8.2 8.6 8.5

Attention during labour 8.8 8.5 9.0

Clear communication 9.7 9.3 9.6

Involvement in decisions 8.7 8.1 8.9

Respect and dignity 9.6 9.0 9.7

Confidence and trust 9.0 8.7 9.4

Length of hospital stay 7.9 6.3 7.5

Delay in discharge 6.0 3.6 4.7

Reasonable response time after birth 6.7 6.7 7.8

Information and explanations 7.7 7.4 8.3

https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/surveys/maternity-services-survey-2018




Kind and understanding care 8.3 8.2 9.1

Partner length of stay 5.6 8.2 9.5

Cleanliness of room or ward 8.6 8.3 9.1

Key

Better

About the same

Worse

The results for the survey across the three trusts indicate that they are scoring similar on each question compared to other trusts across the country taking part. RSCH has scored better in three areas and ASPH in one.

All three trusts have scored relatively low with regard to discharge from hospital being delayed. In particular, ESTH scored worse compared to other trusts in relation to this issue. The results from the survey and system actions and sharing of best practice and learning is co-ordinated through the Surrey Heartlands Local Maternity Network (LMS) Quality and Safety group. Highlight reports on system performance from the LMS are now being produced and these are being received at individual provider clinical quality review meetings so that assurance can be sought and monitored through this forum.

4.2 Community Mental Health Survey 2018

In November 2018 the CQC published the results of their 2018 Community Mental

Health survey. The survey looked at the experiences of people aged 18 years of

over receiving community mental health services during September to November

2017. There were 12,796 participants with a response rate of 28%.

“Results from the 2018 community mental health survey, compared with results from previous years, showed declines across several areas. This includes people’s perceptions of:

seeing someone from NHS mental health services often enough being involved in agreeing their care their agreed care taking personal circumstances into account receiving help with finding support for their physical health needs receiving help with finding support for financial advice or benefits

People’s experience of mental health services were more positive for some questions, this includes:

knowing how to contact the person in charge of their care, if they had a concern




knowing who to contact, out of office hours, during a crisis

Certain groups of people consistently reported poorer experiences of using mental health services, including:

younger people (aged 18-35) people diagnosed with non-psychotic chaotic and challenging disorders”

Source: https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/surveys/community-mental-health-survey-2018

The following table provides a summary of patient responses to the survey for Surrey and Borders NHS Foundation Partnership Trust (SABPT). Patients were asked questions about different aspects of their care and treatment and based on those responses the CQC gave each NHS trust a score out of 10 for each question. Each trust also received a rating of ‘Better, ‘About the same’ or ‘Worse’ to illustrate how they compared on each question to most other trusts that took part in the survey.

SABPT

Health and social care workers 7.1

Organising care 8.3

Planning care 7.0

Reviewing care 7.2

Changes in who people see 5.8

Crisis care 6.9

Medicines 7.1

NHS Therapies 7.0

Support and wellbeing 4.6

Overall views of care and services 7.2

Overall experience 6.8

Key

Better

About the same

Worse

SABPT scored overall ‘About the same’ on the questions, compared to other trusts

that took part in the survey. They did however score worse on one question within

https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/surveys/community-mental-health-survey-2018




the NHS Therapies section, which relates to whether people felt they were involved

as much as they wanted to be in deciding which NHS therapies to use. The Trust

have acknowledged this and will be exploring the issue further with their therapy

leads in the form of a focus group with people using the service, to help understand

what improvements they could make. Updates on the implementation of the action

plans resulting from national surveys are received through the provider clinical

quality review meeting and effectiveness of actions tracked and assured through this

route.

4.3 NHS Staff Survey 2018

In February 2019 the NHS Staff Survey of NHS trusts and foundation trusts was

published. The survey took place between September and December 2018 across

304 NHS organisations with a response rate of 40%.

Overall findings from the survey show that more than seven in ten staff would

recommend their organisation to their family and friends for treatment. This has

increased every year for the last four years.

“Almost three quarters of staff, 74%, feel enthusiastic about their job, a 6% rise on 2014, and more than four out of five, 81%, are satisfied with the quality of care they give to patients.

Whilst fewer NHS staff report experiencing physical violence from patients, relatives or members of the public, the proportion has only fallen from 15.4% to 14.5%.

Among the areas of concern highlighted by the research is that just under one in five staff report personally having experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from other colleagues, an increase from 18% to 19.1%.”

Source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/02/nhs-publishes-latest-nhs-staff-survey-

results/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NHSCBoard+%28NHS+England%29

The table below provides an overview of the responses received for our local provider trusts.

The survey questions were grouped into ten themes and an overall score was calculated for each theme. The table shows how each trust scored on each theme compared to their benchmarking group. ASPH, ESTH and RSCH were compared to the Acute benchmarking group and SABPT to the Mental Health / Learning Disability group. The colour indicates whether the trust’s overall score is either - better; equal to or worse than their benchmarking average score.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/02/nhs-publishes-latest-nhs-staff-survey-results/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NHSCBoard+%28NHS+England%29






ASPH ESTH RSCH SABPT

Equality Diversity and Inclusion

Health and Wellbeing

Immediate Managers

Morale

Quality of Appraisals

Quality of Care

Safe Environment – Bullying & Harassment

Safe Environment – Violence

Safety Culture

Staff Engagement

Key

Above benchmarking average

Equal to benchmarking average

Below benchmarking average

The results differ across the organisations. It is clear that SABPT appears to have the highest staff satisfaction, with the majority of their themes scoring higher than the benchmarking average. On the other hand ESTH scored below average for the majority of their themes indicating poorer staff satisfaction with their trust.

All three acute trusts scored lower than the benchmarking average for ‘Equality Diversity and Inclusion’ and ‘Safe Environment – Bullying and Harassment’. ‘Equality Diversity and Inclusion’ covers questions relating to whether staff have experienced discrimination at work over the past 12 months and whether the organisation has made adequate adjustments for staff to carry out their work and acted fairly with regard to career progression. ‘Safe Environment – Bullying and Harassment’ covers questions relating to personal experience of harassment, bullying or abuse at work in the last 12 months from either the public, managers or other colleagues.

Updates on the implementation of the action plans resulting from the NHS staff

surveys are received through the provider clinical quality review meetings and

updates on the implementation and effectiveness of actions tracked and assured

through this route.

The findings and actions resulting from the Surrey Heartlands CCGs is reported

separately to Governing Body through the Corporate team.




5. Conclusion

This report presents an overview of patient experience data. It demonstrates that

there are systems and processes in place to manage, monitor and report on patient

experience as required by national guidance and a route through the Clinical Quality

Review meetings to pick up and seek assurance or take contractual action as

required on the actions being taken in relation to any areas of non-compliance.




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

AcuteCommunity

Eyecare Service

ASPH FHFT RSCH SABPT Berkshire andSurrey

Pathology

Quarter 3 & 4 (October 2018 - March 2019)Alerts by Provider

6. Appendix 1 – G&WCCG Quality Alerts Data

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Austen Road Surgery

Binscombe Medical Centre

Chiddingfold Surgery

Cranleigh Medical Practice

Fairlands Medical Practice

Grayshott Surgery

Guildowns Group Practice

Haslemere Health Centre

Merrow Park Surgery

Out of area

Villages Medical Centre

Quarter 3 & 4 (October 2018 - March 2019) Alerts by Reporting Organisation




Communication issues17%

Referrals30%

Discharges / Admissions

17%

Planned / Elective Care

8%

Mental Health3%

Other25%

Quarter 3 & 4 (October 2018 - March 2019)Alerts by Issue




0 5 10 15 20

Chobham and West End Surgeries

Parishes Bridges Medical Practice

Rowan Tree Surgery

Shepperton Medical Practice

Southview Surgery

Wey Family Practice

Heathcot Medical Practice

Quarter 3 & 4 (October 2018 - March 2019) Alerts by Reporting Organisation

0

5

10

15

20

25

ASPH Care Home Child andFamily Health

Surrey

CSH SABPT St George's

Quarter 3 & 4 (October 2018 - March 2019)Alerts by Provider

7. Appendix 2 – NWSCCG Quality Alerts Data




admin37%

clinical 15%

referrals18%

Other15%

Prescribing15%

Quarter 3 & 4 (October 2018 - March 2019)Alerts by Issue

Patient Experience Report...Patient Experience Report – May 2019 Page 10 of 26 Theme - mental...

Documents

Transcript of Patient Experience Report...Patient Experience Report – May 2019 Page 10 of 26 Theme - mental...