Enter and view: Cancer Services, Queen Elizabeth Hospital

This Healthwatch Sandwell Enter and View report, published in August 2018, examined the experiences of Sandwell patients receiving cancer chemotherapy services at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QE) Birmingham following the transfer of oncology services from Sandwell and City Hospitals. The visit took place on 11 July 2018 and involved discussions with seven patients and two members of staff. 

Overall, Healthwatch found that patients were receiving a good quality service that was sensitive to their needs. The visiting team found no evidence that standards had fallen since services moved to QE, and most patients were satisfied with the care they received. 

Patients reported several positive aspects of the service. Refreshments were readily available, staff were approachable and supportive, patients were provided with contact information for help after treatment, and most saw the same consultant oncologist at each visit. Some staff working at QE had previously worked with patients at City Hospital, which helped provide continuity of care. 

However, some concerns were raised. Fewer than half of the patients interviewed were aware of the ongoing consultation about the future of oncology services, and many felt they had not been asked for their views. Opinions were mixed when comparing the QE service with the previous service at Sandwell and City Hospitals. While some felt the service was the same or better, others thought it was less personal, busier, and less friendly. Patients commented that staff at City Hospital were more likely to know them by name and that they were more likely to be cared for by the same nurse throughout a treatment session. 

Travel to QE was viewed as an inconvenience for some patients, particularly due to longer journey times, although it was not generally regarded as a major problem. Several patients travelled by car and some commented that parking was easier at QE than at their previous treatment locations. 

Additional issues identified included difficulties contacting the chemotherapy booking line, inconsistencies in offering patients the option to have blood tests carried out closer to home, and one patient's negative experience of an acute oncology admission, where they experienced a long wait and spent the night in a room they described as a "cupboard", which they found upsetting. 

Staff informed Healthwatch that local blood testing options were available for patients and that additional chemotherapy capacity could be opened if demand increased. They also confirmed that facilities existed for patients who needed separate nursing care or a place to lie down during treatment. 

The report made four recommendations: ensure patients are cared for by the same nurse throughout their treatment session where possible; offer all patients the option of having blood tests undertaken locally before appointments; review the chemotherapy booking line system; and review capacity arrangements for acute oncology admissions to ensure patients are treated with dignity and respect. 

In response, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust stated that maintaining continuity of nursing care was already the team's intention, staff had been reminded to offer information about local blood-testing services, improvements were being made to the booking line including a voicemail monitoring system, and the use of a clinic room for overnight admissions would continue only when all other options had been exhausted.

Key conclusion: Patients from Sandwell were generally satisfied with the cancer services provided at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, despite some concerns about travel, communication, continuity of care, and the handling of acute oncology admissions. The report concluded that the service was meeting acceptable standards and identified a number of practical improvements that could enhance patient experience.