Nuffield Health Bristol Hospital - The Chesterfield

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and understood their responsibilities and who they were accountable for. The service had suitable arrangements for identifying, recording and mitigating risks to the service. The main risk in surgery was the aging washer and dryer in endoscopy. There was a planned maintenance programme. The senior management team had a good understanding of these risks which they regularly discussed. They monitored action plans to ensure they mitigated the risks in a timely way. Risks also included the implementation of the new process for pre-assessment which is being introduced across Nuffield hospitals. The senior management team had a good understanding of these risks, which were regularly discussed and monitored action plans to mitigate the risks in a timely way. Senior leaders assessed and monitored the potential impact of these risks on the quality and sustainability of patient care.

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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The hospital has a registered manager in post. At the time of the inspection, a new director of clinical services had recently been appointed. Morning huddles were attended by heads of departments and the hospital manager every morning , these were called a stand-up meeting. The stand-up meeting had a standard agenda to review activity levels, staffing and troubleshoot any issues that might affect patient care that day including the availability of surgical instrumentation for the days theatre lists. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and understood what they were accountable for, and to whom. The service had suitable arrangements for identifying, recording, and mitigating risks to the service. Surgical risks were reviewed regularly through monthly risk meetings. We saw the senior management team had a good understanding of these risks, which were regularly discussed, and had action plans to mitigate the risks. Impact on quality and sustainability was assessed and monitored.

The surgical service had a clear management structure. Monthly heads of department meetings were held with the director of clinical services, hospital director, health and safety and quality leads. We reviewed head of department minutes that showed risk had been reviewed and escalated approrately to their departments. We reviewed monthly ward and theatre team meeting minutes which kept staff informed. They followed a standing agenda to ensure the most important updates were always provided. The hospital had a clear governance structure with various committees. Sub governance meetings fed into integrated governance meetings to ensure information was shared across all services and that staff were fully informed of any risks and safety concerns. The surgical service collected, analysed, managed, and used information well to support all of its activities, using secure electronic systems with security safeguards.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.