Worthing Hospital

Updated 27 February 2026

Date of assessment: 26 to 27 February 2025. Worthing Hospital provides a range of NHS hospital services to people living in and surrounding Worthing, West Sussex. This assessment looked at maternity services. We assessed 33 quality statements across safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.

The rating from maternity services has been combined with the ratings of the other services at this location. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all other services at Worthing Hospital.

The maternity service at Worthing Hospital forms part of University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust maternity services which also includes Royal Sussex County Hospital, St Richards Hospital and Princess Royal Hospital. We assessed the maternity services in response to ongoing concerns about the services and follow up on past breaches of regulation. At the last comprehensive inspection in 2021 the maternity service at Worthing Hospital was rated requires improvement. We completed a focused inspection of maternity services in 2022 which was not rated.

We found breaches of regulations in relation to: risk assessments of the environment, staff training and governance of the service.

Updated 5 November 2024

We assessed the maternity service at Worthing Hospital on 26 to 27 February 2025. The service forms part of University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust maternity services which also includes the Royal Sussex County Hospital, St Richards Hospital and Princess Royal Hospital.

The service includes early pregnancy care, antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care. The maternity unit includes an obstetric consultant-led delivery suite, maternity assessment area (triage), and wards for antenatal and postnatal care.

Around 9,000 babies are born in the maternity service across the trust each year. Worthing Hospital accounts for 1929 births reported from February 2024 to January 2025

We carried out an unannounced assessment of the maternity services at Worthing Hospital. We last inspected the maternity services in 2021, when we rated maternity services as requires improvement. We also completed a focused inspection in 2022 which was not rated.

We inspected this service using our single assessment framework and looked at all the key questions and 33 quality statements.

At this assessment we rated this service as Good. We found 2 breaches in the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and governance.

The breaches related to appropriate management of risks including ligature risk assessments, medicines management and safeguarding training.

We also found breaches in relation to the governance of the service. The breach was in relation to assurance through auditing systems, setting of targets and benchmarking processes.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to Safe Care and Treatment. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations in relation to this.

We visited all areas of the maternity department at Worthing Hospital, including the antenatal and postnatal wards, delivery suite, the triage area and the early pregnancy unit.

We spoke with 11 women and relatives. We reviewed 5 patient records. We spoke with more than 10 members of staff which included: consultants, midwives, senior leaders, maternity assistants, administration staff, pharmacists and housekeeping staff.

We refer to women in this report, but we recognise that some transgender men, non-binary women and women with variations in sex characteristics (VSC) or who are intersex may also use services and experience some of the same issues.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 3 March 2025

We carried out this assessment on 18 and 19 June 2024 following information of concern identified during a Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) monitoring visit. We inspected 20 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions and have combined the scores for these areas with scores from the last inspection to give the rating. We found breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, good governance, and staffing. Staff could not always provide safe care and treatment due to staffing levels within the departments. There was a good safety culture where events were investigated, however there was a mixed response from staff about whether learning was shared and embedded. Staff could not always provide safe care and treatment due to staffing levels. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People could not always access care and treatment when they needed it. Staff described a poor culture, felt senior leaders were not focused on patient care and did not listen when staff escalated safety concerns. However, the service had a defined management structure with clear lines of accountability and most staff described a supportive culture at local level.

Updated 14 February 2024

Updated 22 October 2019

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as outstanding because:

• Leadership was compassionate, inclusive and effective. Leaders at all levels demonstrated the high levels of experience, capacity and capability needed to deliver excellent and sustainable care. Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles.
• Leaders and staff had a deep understanding of issues, challenges, priorities and vision for their service. The strategy places patients’ safety and individual needs at the core of its strategy.
• There was strong collaboration, team-working and support across all functions and a common focus on improving the quality, safety and sustainability of care. Staff are proud of the organisation as a place to work and speak highly of the culture. Staff at all levels are actively encouraged to speak up and raise concerns.
• There was a strong visible person-centred culture to providing care in the critical care unit. Patients were treated with dignity and respect at all times. All staff we spoke with were very passionate about their roles and were dedicated to making sure patients received the best individualised patient-centred care possible.
• Staff understood the impact that a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them, both emotionally and socially. People's emotional and social needs were seen as being as important as their physical needs.
• Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment. Relatives of patients told us they felt involved in decisions. We observed staff communicated with patients and their relatives in a way which they could understand, and they asked patients if they understood what had been discussed.
• All staff were actively engaged in activities to monitor and improve quality and outcomes (including, where appropriate, monitoring outcomes for people once they have transferred to other services). Opportunities to participate in benchmarking and peer review are proactively pursued, including participation in approved accreditation schemes. Outcomes for people who use services are positive, consistent and regularly exceed expectations.
• The continuing development of the staff's skills, competence and knowledge was recognised as being integral to ensuring high-quality care. Staff were proactively supported and encouraged to acquire new skills, use their transferable skills, and share best practice. Managers made sure staff received any specialist training for their role.
• Staff, teams and services were committed to working collaboratively and had found innovative and efficient ways to deliver more joined-up care to people who use services.
• The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. There was a proactive approach to understanding the needs and preferences of different groups of people and to delivering care in a way that meets these needs, which is accessible and promotes equality. This included people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act, people who may be approaching the end of their life, and people who are in vulnerable circumstances or who have complex needs.
• Governance arrangements were proactively reviewed and reflected best practice. A systematic approach was taken to working with other organisations to improve care outcomes.
• There was a fully embedded and systematic approach to improvement which made consistent use of a recognised improvement methodology. Improvement was seen as a way to deal with performance and for the organisation to lean. Improvement methods and skills were available and used across the service and staff were empowered to lead and deliver change.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and near misses and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients honest information and suitable support. Managers ensured that actions from patient safety alerts were implemented and monitored.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed and adjusted staffing levels and skill mix.
• The service had enough medical staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed staffing levels and skill mix.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed and adjusted staffing levels and skill mix.
• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities and the steps to take in the event of a safeguarding concern. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it.

However:

• The high dependency unit did not meet the minimum bed space dimensions as recommended in national guidance
• Safety thermometer data was not displayed. to keep patients and visitors informed about the units performance.

Updated 20 April 2016

Staff provided an end-of-life care service that was outstanding. The specialist palliative care team, mortuary and chaplaincy team worked effectively and cohesively to provide a seamless service. Most audits performed by Worthing Hospital scored above England averages, which underpinned the rating given for this service.

The management structure, staff involvement and culture of the service were good. Patient and staff feedback was consistently positive throughout the inspection. There was a positive vision for the future sustainability of the service.

Updated 29 July 2022

Updated 22 October 2019

Our overall rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

Updated 14 February 2024

Updated 20 April 2016

Overall, we rated the emergency department as 'Outstanding'. It wasn't perfect but the staff and trust executive knew where any shortfalls and risks were and were constantly reviewing the provision to ensure it was meeting the needs of the people using the service.

Departmental leaders and staff had implemented systems to maintain flow and escalate problems as soon as there were indications of delays in patient flow. The trust had programmes of work to improve patient flow through the hospital. The hospital met the national target of seeing, treating, admitting or discharging 95% of patients within four hours, ending the year in the top 20 trusts in the country.

We saw examples of a service that responded in an extremely compassionate way to meet the needs of a patient whose spouse had died the previous day in the same department. The service was very busy but the patient and their relatives were made to feel as though staff had all the time in the world to support and care for them.

Patients were asked about their wishes and were supported to make decisions about their care and treatment. We saw staff consistently offered care that was kind, respectful and considerate whilst promoting their privacy and dignity at all times. Staff supported patients promptly in managing pain and anxiety and we observed staff discussing treatment and pain management with patients in ways they could understand.

The ED had a strongly embedded culture of learning from incidents. There were clear and effective processes for incident reporting, investigation and learning from incidents. Staff we spoke with knew how to escalate concerns in relation to patient safety and safeguarding. They were aware of Duty of Candour and could describe how they met this requirement.

The leaders of the service were well respected by the staff. Staff of all grades and disciplines talked positively about working in the department and for the trust.