Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

22
1 Ratings A key part of the new CQC hospital inspection programme Professor Sir Mike Richards Chief Inspector of Hospitals November 2013

description

 

Transcript of Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Page 1: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

1

Ratings – A key part of the new CQC hospital inspection programme

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

November 2013

Page 2: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

2

Our purpose and role

Our purpose

We make sure health and social care services

provide people with safe, effective,

compassionate, high-quality care and we

encourage care services to improve

Our role

We monitor, inspect and regulate services to

make sure they meet fundamental standards

of quality and safety and we publish what we

find, including performance ratings to help

people choose care

Page 3: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

3

Asking the right questions about quality and safety

Safe

Effective

Caring

Responsive to

people’s needs

Well-led

Page 4: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Ratings in the new hospital inspection programme

• Rationale for ratings

• The task

• Proposed approach

• Making judgements

• Some examples to ask for your views

4

Page 5: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Rationale for ratings

• The public want information about the quality of services presented in a way which is easy to understand

• The approach taken by Ofsted is seen as a model, though we recognise that hospitals are more complex than schools. Patients/public may, for example, be interested in a particular service (e.g. maternity or frail elderly care) rather than a single global rating

• Ratings of services and of Trusts should hopefully be a driver for improvement

5

Page 6: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Ratings: Proposed approach (1)

• A four point scale will be used for all ratings

• Outstanding

• Good

• Requires Improvement

• Inadequate

• Ratings will always take account of all sources of information

• Intelligent monitoring tool

• Information provided by Trust

• Other data sources

• Findings from site visits

• Direct observations

• Staff focus groups

• Patient and public listening events

• Interviews with key people

6

Page 7: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Ratings: Proposed approach (2)

• Bottom up approach: Rate each of the 8 core services on each of the five key questions (safe, effective, caring, responsive, well led).

• Then rate the Trust as a whole on the five key questions, including an overall assessment of well led at Trust level.

• Derive a final overall rating.

• Note: Where Trusts provide separate services (e.g. A+E or maternity) on different sites we will attempt to rate these separately

7

Page 8: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

8

RATINGS TEMPLATE

Page 9: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Safety

Data/Surveillance Direct observation

• Never events • Safe environment

• Serious incidents • Safe equipment

• Infections • Safe medicines

• Safety thermometer • Safe staffing*

• Staff survey (selected items) • Safe processes

• Safe handovers

• Safe information/records

9

Page 10: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Effectiveness

Data/Surveillance Direct observation

• HSMR • Management of the deteriorating patient

• SHMI • Care bundles

• Mortality alerts • Pathways of care

• National clinical audits

10

Page 11: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Caring

Data/Surveillance Direct observation

• Inpatient survey • Staff/patient interactions

• Cancer patient survey • Comfort rounds

• Friends and Family Test • Patient stories

• Response to buzzers

11

Page 12: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Responsive

Data/Surveillance Direct observation

• Waiting time standards • Patient reports

• Cancelled operations • Translation facilities

• Ambulance stays • ‘Comfort factors’

• Analyses of complaints (e.g. TVs, seating areas, rooms

for parents)

12

Page 13: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Well-led

Data/Surveillance Direct observation

• Staff survey (7 items) • Interviews (CEO, MD, DoN etc.)

• Staffing levels • Focus groups

• Sickness rates • Board/ward interactions

• Flu vaccination rates • Staff reports (e.g. of bullying)

• Board minutes

• Quality governance minutes

• Mortality reviews

• Handling/learning from complaints

• Risk register

13

Page 14: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Service: Maternity

Positive findings Negative Findings Rating

Safe •

Effective •

Caring •

Responsive •

Well led •

14

Page 15: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

15

RATINGS TEMPLATE

Page 16: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Trust X: Ratings

16

Safe Effective Caring Responsive Well Led Overall Accident & Emergency

RI RI G G G RI

Medicine

G RI G G G RI

Surgery

G RI RI RI RI RI

Critical Care RI G G G G G

Maternity

RI G O G I RI

Peadatrics

RI G G G G G

End of Life

G RI G RI RI RI

Outpatients

G G G RI RI RI

Overall

RI RI G RI RI RI

Key

O Outstanding

G Good

RI Requires Improvement

I Inadequate

UA Unassessable

Page 17: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Judgement 1: Medical Care, Trust A

• Medical care was found to be good on almost all wards, with audit data showing good clinical outcomes

• However, one ward for frail elderly was understaffed and had a high incidence of pressure ulcers and falls

How would you rate this service?

17

Page 18: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Judgement 2: Surgical care, Trust B

• Trust B had 5 ‘never events’ over the past year (somewhat above average for a Trust of this size). All related to retained swabs.

• The inspection team reported that the Trust has taken this very seriously. The WHO surgical checklist has now been fully implemented and an open, learning culture in theatres is now evident.

• Surgical outcomes are otherwise good and patients report that staff are very caring.

How would you rate this service?

18

Page 19: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Judgement 3: Caring, Trust C

• The inspection team observed multiple staff/patient interactions indicating high levels of caring. Several patients at the listening event also reported positively on the caring behaviour of staff.

• However, results from the inpatient survey indicate that this trust is in the lower quartile in terms of patients’ experience of care.

Howe would you rate this service?

19

Page 20: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Judgement 4: Paediatric A+E services, Trust D

• Adult A+E services at Trust D were judged to be good on all domains (safe, effective, caring, responsive, well led).

• Trust D has no consultants in A+E trained in paediatrics and very few nursing staff are trained in paediatric resuscitation.

• Care for children once admitted was judged to be good/outstanding.

How would you rate (1) The A+E service

(2) The paediatric service?

20

Page 21: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Judgement 5: Non clinical services, Trust E

• Trust E has good or outstanding ratings for all 8 core services.

• The Trust was recently found to have poor hygiene in its kitchens by environmental health inspectors.

• The Trust management was horrified that they had not spotted this for themselves and had immediately rectified the situation. They were very open about this at the time of the CQC inspection and appear to have learnt from this experience.

Q: Should this incident affect the Trust’s rating?

21

Page 22: Mike Richards: Ratings in the hospital inspection programme

Trust X: Ratings

22

Safe Effective Caring Responsive Well Led Overall Accident & Emergency

RI RI G G G RI

Medicine

G RI G G G RI

Surgery

G RI RI RI RI RI

Critical Care RI G G G G G

Maternity

RI G O G I RI

Peadatrics

RI G G G G G

End of Life

G RI G RI RI RI

Outpatients

G G G RI RI RI

Overall

RI RI G RI RI RI

Key

O Outstanding

G Good

RI Requires Improvement

I Inadequate

UA Unassessable