Enter and view: Wanstead Hospital and King George’s Hospital

Download (PDF 328KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Redbridge gather information on people’s experiences of health and social care services and there are times when it is appropriate for Healthwatch Redbridge to see and hear for themselves how services are being delivered: these visits are called ‘Enter and View’, they are not inspections. Healthwatch Redbridge visited Heronwood and Galleon Wards - Wanstead Hospital on Tuesday 7 April 2015 and Foxglove Ward - King George’s Hospital on Wednesday 8 April 2015. The key findings highlighted areas in relation to patient feedback, staff feedback and observation. The findings inform at Heronwood and Galleon Wards - Staff were friendly and clearly committed to ensuring patients receive high quality care. Authorised Representatives felt that the wards offered an excellent example of good reablement and rehabilitation facilities. Some nursing and care staff on the wards commented that they felt disappointed and confused at the lack of clarification regarding the impending relocation of services. The findings inform at Foxglove Ward that staff were friendly and clearly committed to ensuring patients receive high quality care. Authorised Representatives felt that the ward lacked a clear focus towards reablement and rehabilitation. They stated they felt ‘it was more like a frail elderly ward’ a number of times throughout the visit. Representatives were concerned that no clear plans were available given the impending reconfiguration of services. The report contains 7 recommendations.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Enter and view: Wanstead Hospital and King George’s Hospital
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Redbridge
Date of publication 
Wednesday, 8 April, 2015
Date evidence capture began 
Tuesday, 7 April, 2015
Date evidence capture finished 
Wednesday, 8 April, 2015
Type of report 
Report
Key themes 
Information providing
Service delivery organisation and staffing
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-6147

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
No
What type of organisation requested the work 
N/A
Primary research method used 
Observation
Structured interview
Survey
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 
Announced

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 
Not known
Age group 
Not known
Gender 
Not known
Ethnicity 
Not known
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Yes
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
No
Does the information include staff's views? 
Yes
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
N/A
Does the information include other people's views? 
No
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 
Mixed

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Yes
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Yes action has been taken or promised
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Yes
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
No
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.