Provider feedback - NHS Blood and Transplant Luton Blood Centre

Download (PDF 592KB)
You voted 'No'.

Summary of report content

Throughout January – March 2017 Healthwatch Luton targeted their engagement within the community. They visited the Luton Blood Centre to speak with attendees and blood givers to gather feedback on health and social care services in Luton. The overall sentiment of the feedback is positive - mainly 46% of the reviews were positive and 38% were negative. This can be viewed in more detail in the statistics below regarding monthly sentiments. The main source of feedback was via direct engagement. The 13 attendees provided feedback on 6 services. This included health services and social care. The review section highlights people's personal experiences and stories regarding this provider. Healthwatch Luton have forwarded this Provider Feedback to the Blood Centre in May 2017. Healthwatch Luton would look to attend the blood centre again to gather further feedback from this cohort of people. Overall, the general feedback on the blood centre itself and on the other services was positive. The main feedback was: children’s centre – facilities negative; hospital – facilities negative, treatment and care was positive; GP – access and facilities was negative; dentists - treatment and care and access was positive. Healthwatch Luton would recommend: a response from the blood centre on the feedback provided by service-users on their service provision at the blood centre; any actions that are taken forward by the provider in response to this feedback provided to be communicated back to Healthwatch Luton.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Provider feedback - NHS Blood and Transplant Luton Blood Centre
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Luton
Date of publication 
Monday, 1 May, 2017
Date evidence capture began 
Sunday, 1 January, 2017
Date evidence capture finished 
Friday, 31 March, 2017
Type of report 
Key themes 
Building and facilities
Quality of care
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? 
Engagement Event
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
GP practice
Secondary care services 
Acute services with overnight beds
Acute services without overnight beds / listed acute services with or without overnight beds
Social care services 
Adult social care

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
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? 
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? 

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.