Enter and view programme 2025: maternity services

Healthwatch Luton report on two announced enter and view visits to maternity services at Luton and Dunstable hospitals on 26 March and 22 April 2025.  They spoke to 16 people.

Wards 32 and 33 at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital provide a clean, safe, and welcoming environment for antenatal and postnatal care. Both wards are easily accessible, well-signposted, and equipped with features supporting physical access, such as lifts and wheelchair-friendly doors. While core amenities like hand sanitisers and drinking water are available, the absence of items such as hearing loops, tissues, and visible feedback systems was noted. Overall, both wards foster a family-friendly atmosphere, particularly through policies that support partner and child visitation. 

Staffing across both wards is diverse and experienced. Ward 32 includes newly qualified and internationally experienced Band 5 midwives, while Ward 33 is a training-focused environment with Band 6 and student midwives. Despite challenges—particularly under-resourcing on Ward 33—staff on both wards were praised for their professionalism, responsiveness, and compassionate care. Patients consistently reported feeling safe and supported, though Ward 33 staff raised concerns about team morale and limited channels for raising interpersonal issues. 

Staffing pressures were more evident to staff than to patients. While staff described frequent shortages, particularly on Ward 33, patients on both wards generally felt well cared for, noting prompt responses and regular staff contact. This suggests that staff are maintaining high standards under pressure, though the sustainability of this is uncertain. 

Both wards demonstrated good understanding of accessibility and safeguarding needs, but consistent screening for communication or translation support was lacking. Ward 33 patients were more likely to have been asked about language needs and benefitted from language-concordant care. This highlights a need for standardised approaches to identifying and addressing accessibility requirements.

Care and birth plans were reportedly discussed with most patients, with Ward 33 providing more structured documentation. Pain relief was generally accessible, though inconsistently explained, and mobility was actively encouraged on both wards. However, limited awareness of communal areas or outdoor access reduced opportunities for patient movement and engagement. 

Dining services were better received on Ward 32, with patients praising variety and timeliness. On Ward 33, feedback was mixed, with calls for greater cultural sensitivity in menu options. While staff highlighted the availability of breastfeeding and postnatal support, many patients reported not accessing these services—suggesting a need for more proactive engagement, especially for those awaiting delivery or under observation. 

Discharge planning was largely effective, though sometimes communicated late. Most patients felt prepared for going home and had confidence in followup support, with slightly higher awareness of postnatal services reported on Ward 33. Complaints and feedback processes were broadly understood, though some patients felt unsure about how to raise concerns, likely due to the lack of visible materials such as comments boxes or multilingual information. 

In summary, both wards are delivering safe, compassionate care in well-maintained settings. Key strengths include staff responsiveness, patient safety, and continuity of care. Areas for improvement include staff wellbeing support, visibility of feedback processes, consistency in accessibility screening, and more proactive delivery of postnatal services.

The report contains a number of recommendations