SaHF DMBC Volume 1 Edition 1.1.pdf - Shaping a healthier future

experience. In order to use this as a comparative measure of patient experience the
business case uses nationally collected site level information (from ERIC returns) in terms of
the proportion of space deemed to be not functionally suitable as NHS space and the age of
the estate. This does not take into account in any way current patients‟ views of the
respective sites. Therefore the information‟s use in this way is somewhat open to challenge.
In addition Ealing‟s estate is assessed as “low” quality, despite the assessment indicating
that all of the space is functionally suitable. The assessment appears to be based purely on
the age of the estate, which in fact compares favourably with other trusts in NW London.
This is considered further later in this report.
Much more appropriately, the patient experience criteria also incorporate recent patient
experience data. It should be noted that Ealing, West Middlesex, Northwick Park and Central
Middlesex score statistically below the national average in respect of the rating of the care
received by patients. Ealing is the only NW London Trust that scores statistically below
national average in terms of patients‟ assessment of the respect with which they were
treated. Ealing has the third best score in relation to patients‟ desire level of involvement in
their care. However, the business case states that “the difference between all the scores is
minimal and indeed the national scores have a very small range. Local clinicians did not feel
that using this data in isolation gave them sufficient basis to differentiate between the
options”. This is open to challenge. Given its source and focus, this is a much better
indicator of respective patient experience than the “proxy” estate indicator.”
9.9.14 The implications of this feedback on the patient experience sub-criterion
The feedback we received about the patient experience sub-criterion included a suggestion
for alternatives. We considered the feedback received as follows:
Response to feedback about Patients’ views of sites referenced in the Rideout
report: Patient views are considered through the correlation between age and quality
of estate. Evidence for the correlation is provided in the following articles:
o Lawson B, Phiri M, Wells-Thorpe J (2004). The architectural healthcare
environment and its effects on patient health outcomes report. NHS
Estates. The study indicates that the architectural environment can contribute
to the treatment of patients and significantly affect their health outcomes. The
findings indicate patients are sensitive and articulate about their architectural
environment and patients make better progress in purpose-designed modern
buildings than in older ones
o Enhancing the Healing Environment: A Guide for NHS trusts (2004). The
Kings Fund. A growing body of evidence has found that an attractive,
sensitively designed hospital environment can offer significant therapeutic
benefits to patients and boost staff morale.
9.9.15 The outcome of the clinical quality sub-criterion
Given the feedback, and the absence of any viable alternative, we reached the conclusion
that the evaluation of the patient experience sub-criterion is still valid. We confirmed this
decision with the Clinical Board and Programme Board during the post consultation phase:
This outcome is unchanged from that reached pre-consultation.
9c Decision making analysis stage 6 349