Whipps Cross University Hospital

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

Although leaders were able to demonstrate plans to address risks - including future plans relating to the redevelopment of the hospital - this had not sufficiently mitigated the risks the service faced nor had it resulted in effective improvements in performance. We found that senior leaders were finding it difficult to address the challenges the service faced. Hence, the trust had engaged with stakeholders across the wider health and social care system as the challenges to access and flow were complex and not within the gift of the hospital to address alone. Staff told us they were well supported locally in their roles. Nursing staff we spoke with said they were supported by their seniors. Staff felt leaders were engaged and told us they had regular appraisals and access to training. Leaders had the appropriate range of skills, knowledge, and experience to carry out their roles. There were clear reporting structures and key roles were supported by deputies to support succession planning. Leaders within the ED described they had a good relationship with the trust’s executive team. They met with the executive team regularly. Most staff spoke positively about their experience of working for the trust. Staff said that their colleagues were very supportive.

This service scored 71 (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 found that senior leaders were finding it difficult to address the challenges the service faced. Hence, the trust had engaged with stakeholders across the wider health and social care system as the challenges to access and flow were complex and not within the gift of the hospital to address issues. Staff told us they were well supported locally in their roles. However, nursing staff we spoke with said they were supported by their seniors. Staff felt leaders were engaged, they also told us they had regular appraisals and access to training. Leaders within the ED described they had a good relationship with the trust’s executive team. They met with the executive team regularly. Most staff spoke positively about their experience of working for the trust. Staff said that their colleagues were very supportive.

Although leaders were able to demonstrate plans to address risks - including future plans relating to the redevelopment of the hospital - this had not sufficiently mitigated the risks the service faced nor had it resulted in effective improvements in performance. Leaders understood the risks and challenges to the service however they told us they did not always have the resources and space to manage the issues the service faced such as the capacity constraints within the service which impacted on patient flow in the emergency department. Not all of the risks we identified on the inspection had been recognised by the service. For example, poor hand hygiene which was observed during the inspection and poor performance in infection, prevention and control audits, had not been recorded on the service’s risk register. Leaders had the appropriate range of skills, knowledge, and experience to carry out their roles. There were clear reporting structures and key roles were supported by deputies to support succession planning. Leaders attended regular governance meetings to discuss governance, risk and performance. Leaders engaged and worked in collaboration with external partners to monitor performance.

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.

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

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.