What do patients think about the Fracture Clinics at the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust?

Download (PDF 882KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Worcestershire completed 25 visits across the three hospital sites between 5th March 2019 – 9th April 2019. The Trust were aware that we would be carrying out visits between these dates. However, hospital staff did not know when we would be visiting which clinic or on which site. 13 visits were to Worcestershire Royal Hospital (WRH); 7 to the Alexandra Hospital and 5 to the Kidderminster Hospital & Treatment Centre (KHTC).
They developed a survey asking patients about their experience of the Fracture Clinic. They used the same survey at all 3 hospital sites. The Survey asked patients about referral to the clinic; reception; waiting at the clinic; clinic environment; hand hygiene; seeing the doctor and alternatives to face to face appointments. We also asked patients about what was positive about their visit and what could be improved.

They collected a total of 375 surveys. Overall, the responses to the survey questions were positive. They found most patients had been referred to the Fracture Clinic by hospital staff. Most patients said they were not given an opportunity to explain about any particular communication needs they might have at the reception. 98% of patients said they were able to get a seat in the waiting room, however it was cramped. 

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
What do patients think about the Fracture Clinics at the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust?
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Worcestershire
Date of publication 
Thursday, 11 July, 2019
Date evidence capture began 
Tuesday, 5 March, 2019
Date evidence capture finished 
Tuesday, 9 April, 2019
Type of report 
Enter and view
Key themes 
Booking appointments
Building and facilities
Communication between staff and patients
Consent to care and treatment
Health promotion
Holistic support
Information providing
Integration of services
Public involvement
Quality of appointment
Quality of staffing
Service delivery organisation and staffing
Staff attitudes
Staff levels
Waiting time to be seen once arrived at appointment
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 
Engagement event
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
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 
Minor injuries unit

Details about conditions and diseases

Conditions or diseases 
Injuries, accidents and wounds

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
Specific ethnicity if known 
Sexual orientation 
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Not known
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.