We did not speak to people who used this service as part of this review. We looked at a random sample of medical records. This was to check that current practice ensured that no treatment for the termination of pregnancy was commenced unless two certificated opinions from doctors had been obtained.

We spoke with 22 people in the out-patients, X-ray and day stay departments of the hospital during our visit. Patients spoken with throughout the hospital noted they were confident that staff were knowledgeable regarding the care being provided and that care provision was of an acceptable or good standard.

Generally, people were satisfied with the written and verbal information they had been sent by the hospital or had been provided with on the day. They felt that the information had been clear, appropriate and helpful. Three patients with whom we spoke said they would feel comfortable about making a complaint if they felt they wanted to. However, they were not aware of seeing any complaints leaflets in the hospital. They were unaware of Patient Advisory Liaison Services (PALS), or how they can assist them.

There were no complaints about the length of time people had to wait to receive a hospital appointment, although some people made comments of the lack of information about waiting times within the hospital once they had booked in. Other people felt frustrated by the lack of information about clinic running times. However, those spoken with in out-patients were complimentary about the helpfulness and pleasant manner of reception staff in particular.

Patients in the X-ray department and day unit said that their rights of dignity and privacy had been upheld by the hospital staff during their time there. Some patients had used this facility before and spoke positively about the ‘after care treatment’ provided at the hospital.

We spoke with a patient and a relative whose first language was not English. They told us that they had experienced difficulty in understanding what was being said to them and had not been offered interpreter services.

On the day unit the patients felt that they had been actively involved in their personal care and treatment plan and had been included in the decision making processes. The appropriate staff had informed them of any associated risks and any options of care available. Patients said that they had been provided with verbal and written consent in respect of their expected clinical procedure and that they felt well informed about the treatment they were receiving.

We also spoke with four people including a family member, who required wheelchair assistance. All said that the hospital provided good access facilities for wheelchair users. They did report, though, that they had difficulty with the car parking arrangements; their perception was that there were insufficient parking facilities near to the hospital entrances.

Patients with whom we spoke stated that they had never had any cause for concern about their wellbeing whilst receiving care and that they had no concern about the standard of cleanliness and hygiene within the hospital.

Written comments, we saw, from patients seen on the day unit were also of a positive nature.