20150901 Nottingham NUH Inspection CQC Evidence report_September 2015.pdf

Download (PDF 673KB)
You voted 'No'.

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Nottingham and Healthwatch Nottinghamshire were approached by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to support the planning process for the 2015 inspection of Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. This report presents a summary of the patient experiences of the acute services provided by the Trust. The experiences are collected through four main channels: Direct methods include Healthwatch engagement activities, our websites, telephone and email. Their online monitoring system collects evidence from Twitter, blogs and news sites. Patient Opinion, although this data has only been collected by Healthwatch Nottinghamshire since May 2015. Information sharing data includes experiences passed to us from neighbouring Healthwatch. Only experiences collected between 1st February 2014 and 2nd September 2015 were included. Evidence collected by the two Healthwatch organisations is presented together. 536 patient experiences were gathered between 1st February 2014 and 31st August 2015. Overall, half of all the experiences collected about Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust were positive. A further 6% were mixed, including both positive and negative issues.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
20150901 Nottingham NUH Inspection CQC Evidence report_September 2015.pdf
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Nottinghamshire
Date of publication 
Wednesday, 2 September, 2015
Date evidence capture began 
Saturday, 1 February, 2014
Date evidence capture finished 
Wednesday, 2 September, 2015
Type of report 
Key themes 
Building and facilities
Communication between staff and patients
Continuity of care
Food and nutrition
Information providing
Quality of care
Quality of staffing
Quality of treatment
Healthwatch reference number 

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
What type of organisation requested the work 
Primary research method used 
User stories
How was the information collected? 
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Secondary care services 
Acute services with overnight beds
Acute services without overnight beds / listed acute services with or without overnight beds

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
Not known
Not known
Not known
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Does the information include staff's views? 
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
Does the information include other people's views? 
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
What type of impact was determined? 
Implied Impact

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.