Agenda item

Nigel Owen informed Members that the Review into Dignity of Care for Older People in Hospitals followed on from a national report published in 2010. That report had flagged up a number of issues including respect, dignity and understanding nutritional requirements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had made a commitment to go and review 100 hospitals. By the 19 July 2011, 97 hospitals had been reviewed, the Royal Berkshire Hospital was not one of them.

One of the early reports, from Luton and Dunstable was extremely poor and highlighted a number of concerns and simple standards being missed. Locally, the Great Western Hospital at Swindon had been reviewed and was found not to be compliant with regard to respect and dignity for older people, and there was another improvement required in respect of nutritional requirements.

The Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital had recently undergone the examination by the CQC and were found to be compliant.

It was proposed that West Berkshire Council facilitate a focus group to bring together voluntary groups, patients and families, to discuss their experiences of the care in the Royal Berkshire Hospital.

Councillor  Boeck asked how objective the focus groups would be.  Mr Owen responded that the focus group would be completely independent of the Health service, but people would be self selecting, and so the response would be qualitative rather than quantitative. It would highlight the themes and issues.

Councillor Jackson-Doerge commented that the proposed focus group might miss people, such as those who had moved into care homes, and people in their own homes without care. Mr Owen said he would seek to  include them.

Councillor Mason said she was not surprised by Basingstoke and North Hampshire’s results, as they were a very good hospital for care standards. She asked whether it was possible to ask the CQC to visit the Royal Berkshire Hospital. Mr Nigel Owen said that unfortunately the programme was near completion, and he did not think CQC would have the resources to extend it.

Councillor Swift-Hook asked whether it was just acute hospitals that were being reviewed or if community hospitals were being included. The CQC review was just concerned with acute hospitals, but, because this review was being carried out by the Council it was possible to look at community hospitals as well. Councillor Swift-Hook questioned whether the review would just bring forward bad experiences, and therefore produce skewed results. Mr Owen replied that this might be the case, however bad experiences should not be ignored.  The suggestion was for the findings to be reported back to the panel at their next meeting.

Councillor Ellison was very interested in this review, having had a family member experience problems whilst in hospital care.

Councillor Webb asked whether the Royal Berkshire Hospital had an internal scrutiny function. Mrs Searle replied that it did., and suggested it could be worthwhile asking the Royal Berkshire Hospital for compliments and complaints relating to Dignity in Care for Older People. Local hospitals would welcome the review taking place. It was also noted by Members that the Royal Berkshire Hospital had dignity champions. The dignity champions signed up to a code of conduct, and sought to improve dignity of people in the care of the hospital.

Councillor Webb brought Members attention to the proposed timescales in 4.1, he said that this seemed reasonable.  He liked the idea of hearing experiences first hand. Mr Owen said that there were two key areas, respect and nutrition. Respect took into account dignity in care, as well as how involved the patient was, and how aware they were of what was going on. Nutrition took into account meals provided, and if they were substantial for the patient, and meeting their needs.

Councillor Swift-Hook supported these recommendations, but also suggested that the following were reviewed:

• Complaints; regarding dignity and respect in care
• Choice involving nutrition; making sure people can eat it.
• Management of Medicine.

Councillor Boeck said that although Councillor Swift-Hook’s proposals were important he thought the proposals should be focussed.

Councillor Webb agreed and proposed that respect be used as an assessment, as well as Nutrition, which had the potential to be broader and encompass what Councillor Swift-Hook mentioned regarding nutritional requirements. Councillor Webb said that when explaining to the focus group, broader examples such as the other CQC Standards which overlapped with Respect and Nutrition should be used.

Councillor Webb proposed the following:

• That the timescale as set out in the report be kept to
• The headings of Respect and Nutrition be used as the focal point into the Review into Dignity of Care for Older People in Hospitals.

All Members present agreed.

Councillor Webb asked if Councillor Swift-Hook and Councillor Chandler as substitutes wished to be kept updated with the review. Councillor Chandler and Swift-Hook both asked to be kept up to date.