St Helier Hospital A and E report

Download (PDF 2.47MB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Sutton was approached by Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust to see if a project could be carried out to collect the views of patients using A&E services. The request was in response to average scores for the Friends and Family Test despite good performance with regards to A&E waiting times. Healthwatch Sutton agreed undertake the project with the support of ‘enter and view’ volunteers. Healthwatch Sutton analysed a large quantity of Friends and Family free text responses and identified the emerging themes. These were used to generate a series of questions about people’s experience of A&E. In addition, Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) asked for information about people’s experience prior to attending A&E. Further questions were added to address this area. During April and May 2018, volunteers visited the A&E department and offered patients 3 ways to complete the survey; on-line, paper (with freepost envelope) or a telephone call from our volunteers after they have returned home. Volunteers also visited patients in the Acute Medical Unit as all patients on this ward had passed through A&E. These patients were able to complete the survey, with the assistance of a volunteer, on the ward. In total, 12 visits were made to A&E and AMU by Healthwatch Sutton and Healthwatch Merton volunteers. Eighty seven survey responses were received. Following analysis of the responses the findings highlighted: For those patients that were told about waiting times, 54% stated that the wait was shorter than they were told, 41% stated the wait was about as long as they were told and 5% stated the wait was longer. On average, all staff groups were highly rated from 1-5 (1 – Very poor, 5 – Excellent). Receptionists 4, nurses 4.5 and doctors 4.5 on this scale. This is reflected in the positive comments received for each staff group. Only 2.5% of respondents stated that staff at the Emergency Department did not address the reason for their visit. Approximately, 20% stated their reasons were met ‘to some extent’. Nearly 80% felt that the reason for their visit was ‘definitely’ met. Of those that had waited in the Emergency Department (excluding ‘Don’t know/ can’t remember’), 58% stated that they were not told how long they would have to wait. Of the patients who gave an opinion on the fairness of the order in which people were seen in the Emergency Department, 78% thought that it seemed fair with the remaining 22% stating that it did not seem fair. Removing those patients who did not want pain relief, 22% stated that they didn’t ask for any but needed it and a further 5% stated they asked for it but didn’t receive it.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
St Helier Hospital A and E report
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Sutton
Date of publication 
Monday, 1 October, 2018
Date evidence capture began 
Monday, 1 October, 2018
Date evidence capture finished 
Monday, 1 October, 2018
Type of report 
Report
Key themes 
Access
Admission
Car parking access
Communication between staff and patients
Public involvement
Quality of care
Quality of staffing
Quality of treatment
Staff levels
Staff training
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-7289

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
Yes
What type of organisation requested the work 
Service Provider
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

Secondary care services 
Accident & emergency

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
87
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? 
No
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? 
No
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.