Evaluation review of Ambulatory emergency at West Middlesex University Hospital, Hounslow

Download (PDF 3.73MB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Hounslow (HWH) carried out an evaluative review of the Ambulatory Emergency Care (AEC) service based at West Middlesex University Hospital (WMUH). AEC is an emerging, streamlined way of managing patients presenting to hospital who would traditionally be admitted. Instead, they can be treated in an ambulatory care setting and discharged the same day. Healthwatch Hounslow interviewed staff working within the AEC unit, 20 GPs in the community, 50 AEC patients, reviewed admissions and discharge data, quarterly monitoring and referral routes. Three different questionnaires were used for each audience. Almost without exception, AEC users have an extremely positive view about the services they receive and have showered AEC with adjectives such as: professional, accessible, helpful, efficient, reassuring, compassionate, kind etc. AEC staff are rightfully both proud and passionate about the services they provide to their patients. There appears to be a few grey areas and staff are eager to bring about changes to improve the quality of their care and make their services more smooth sailing. Despite some negative comments and suggestions for change, GPs are also appreciative of the idea behind AEC and its utility and service provision. Recommendation: that if possible the space available to the AEC unit in WMUH be increased.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Evaluation review of Ambulatory emergency at West Middlesex University Hospital, Hounslow
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Hounslow
Date of publication 
Thursday, 8 December, 2016
Date evidence capture began 
Wednesday, 9 September, 2015
Date evidence capture finished 
Saturday, 9 May, 2015
Type of report 
Patient experience
Key themes 
Access
Discharge
Health inequalities
Service delivery organisation and staffing
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-6295

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
Survey
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 
N/A

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
Urgent care services
Secondary care services 
Acute services without overnight beds / listed acute services with or without overnight beds
Urgent and emergency care services 
Urgent care services

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
70
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? 
Yes
Does the information include staff's views? 
Yes
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
All care professionals
Does the information include other people's views? 
Yes
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? 
No
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Yes
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
Not known
What type of impact was determined? 
Implied Impact
Tangible Impact (cost related)

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.