Wakefield Hospice

Updated 29 March 2024

Wakefield hospice is an independent provider and registered charity committed to providing the highest level of symptom management and care for people who had advanced active, progressing and life-threatening illnesses. They supported anyone with a life-limiting illness such as cancer, dementia, chronic lung and heart conditions, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease and other debilitating conditions. The hospice is partially funded by the NHS and has been registered with CQC since 2010. It provides treatment of disease, disorder, and injury, to adults aged 18 to 65.

Wakefield hospice has a registered manager. The hospice is a purpose-built 2-storey building with a 16 bedded in-care patient unit (IPU). It also has a day therapy department and is situated close to Wakefield city centre, in West Yorkshire. The services are provided within the day therapy Seymour suite. This is a large modern building accessible and safe for all service users equipped with appropriate furniture.

The hospice also provides non-regulated services such as complementary therapies and bereavement counselling services to children, adolescents and young adults. It provides support for patients living with dementia through their end of life care (EoLC) admiral nurse. The service was offered grant funding in November 2023 to train volunteers to pilot a Namaste community service. However, these are not within scope of this inspection, as the service does not deliver regulated activities.

Our inspection was unannounced (staff did not know we were coming). We last inspected the service in 2014.

Updated 29 March 2024

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed infection risks well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines and safety incidents well and learned lessons from adverse events.
• Staff provided a high standard of evidence-based care and treatment, consistently gave patients enough to eat and drink in response to individualised plans, 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 and those close to them, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff were consistently committed to treating patients and those close to them with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, found innovative ways to meet their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided strong, caring and respectful emotional support to patients, and those close to them. Staff worked in partnership with patients and those close to them and were intuitive to their needs.
• The service were active partners in planning care to meet the needs of local people. The service actively engaged with extensive local organisations to understand the changing needs of the local populations. They took account of patients’ individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
• 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:

• Consultant out of hours cover of the first on-call rota was not evenly shared or sustainable.

Updated 29 March 2024

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed infection risks well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines and safety incidents well and learned lessons from adverse events.
• Staff provided a high standard of evidence-based care and treatment, consistently gave patients enough to eat and drink in response to individualised plans, 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 and those close to them, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff were consistently committed to treating patients and those close to them with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, found innovative ways to meet their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided strong, caring and respectful emotional support to patients, and those close to them. Staff worked in partnership with patients and those close to them and were intuitive to their needs.
• The service were active partners in planning care to meet the needs of local people. The service actively engaged with extensive local organisations to understand the changing needs of the local populations. They took account of patients’ individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
• 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:

• Consultant out of hours cover was not evenly shared or sustainable.
• The service’s incident dashboard had no categorisation for different levels of harm.
• Meeting discussions and learning were not always updated from falls and pressure ulcer incidents to ensure future prevention.