Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust

Updated 18 February 2026

Although undertaken through our previous methodology, our last assessment of the well-led key question at trust level rated the organisation as requires improvement. Following a major transformation focused on the opening of a new hospital and bringing services together, and changes at senior executive level, this assessment has seen the trust rating improve to good, although with some areas to tackle and improve.

Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust is an integrated care provider serving a local population of around 530,000 people from across west Birmingham and the towns within Sandwell. The population has an average age of 37 years which is 4 years below the national average age. Life expectancy at 78 years is 2 years below average. There are around 45% of children living in poverty, which is 15% above the national average. Around 30% of the population does not have English as their main language. This is twice that of the west Birmingham region and 21% above the national average. There are around 80 different languages spoken in the local community.

The trust manages several hospital and community services. This includes the Midland Metropolitan University Hospital (MMUH) in Smethwick which opened in the autumn of 2024. This hospital provides a full range of surgery, acute and emergency medicine (AE), and maternity services, among others. The trust also runs City Health and Sandwell Health Campuses which provide outpatient services, day case surgery and diagnostics. Sandwell Health Campus also has an urgent treatment centre open from 8am to 11pm, 7 days a week. The City Health Campus is also home to the Birmingham and Midland Eye Centre (BMEC) providing regional and specialist eye services and as a centre for clinical research. The trust provides stroke, medical outpatients, and intermediate care at Rowley Regis Hospital. It hosts both the National Poisons Information Service, the Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia centre, and audiology services at the Lyng Centre. The Lyng Centre and other sites provide community services to the local population. The trust also is responsible for several GP practices and local networks.

The trust employs around 8,200 permanent staff. It sees around 250,000 people each year in its AE and urgent treatment centre; around 618,000 people were seen by community teams; there were 45,000 day-case surgeries; and around 900,000 people had outpatient appointments. Just over 5,000 babies were born in 2024/25. Its annual income is in the region of £800mn. The trust is managed by a unitary trust board made up of executive and non-executive directors. The trust works in close cooperation with The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust and many of the trust directors have ‘group’ appointments spanning both organisations. There are a growing number of teams which also span both organisations for sharing both resources and experience.

During our assessment we visited 3 hospitals (Sandwell and City known as ‘Health Campuses’) and undertook assessments of 4 service groups. This included

• Urgent and emergency care (AE) at MMUH

• Maternity services at the MMUH

• Surgical services at MMUH and BMEC

On our visits to the 3 hospitals or health campuses we held focus groups for any members of staff to come and speak with us about their experiences. At Sandwell Health Campus we met 13 staff from across the service including community and administration staff who had 251 years of working in healthcare between them. At City Health Campus we met 9 staff from across the service including imaging, theatres, phlebotomy, physiotherapy and operations managers who had 213 years of working in healthcare between them. At the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, we met a wide range of staff including consultants, resident doctors, senior nurses, and the nursing and medical leadership teams. We met leaders for the staff networks, trades union representatives, diversity and inclusion leads and operational directors. We also talked with administration and corporate staff, the medicines management team, and staff who joined our ‘all staff’ focus groups.

We assessed Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospital NHS Trust for leadership using our standard methods. This included interviews with staff across the whole organisation, including members of the trust board and senior clinical leaders; we used evidence provided by the trust and stakeholders; and used data and intelligence we hold about the organisation.

We assessed each of the 8 new quality statements for the trust and have reported on the good practice in many areas, as well as those that need to be improved.

There was a shared direction, vision and strategy with the organisation aligned to plans and objectives and those of the local system and partners. The direction was based on understanding the challenges faced and for the future, including financial pressures and growing patient demand. There were capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders who led with integrity. There was commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion, and key indicators were showing improvement, although still with things to do. The diversity in the workforce was valued and recognised for its importance to the diversity of the local population.

There was a system of governance, although this needed to be improved. Executive and leadership responsibilities were clear and supported the delivery of good quality and sustainable care, treatment and support. However, there needed to be more evidence to support how actions taken in the past had led to improvements and were continuously evaluated, and how audits were effective in improving patient care. Too much guidance was significantly non-compliant in implementation. Some actions to make improvements had no objective measurements or explanations of how they would be achieved. There were improvements needed in some key clinical safety metrics and risk assessments. Further work was needed to improve the time taken to investigate serious incidents or be able to demonstrate action had been taken quickly where investigations were complex and/or drawn out.

The trust’s performance against key clinical measures and standards had improved in some areas but slow to make progress in others. As with the national picture, areas of concern remained in AE around waiting times. Diagnostic waiting lists had reduced but waiting times in some disciplines were still worse than local or regional averages.

There was more work required around the confidence in digital systems and their ability to work together. The trust needed to ensure its processes for determining if staff were fit and proper were comprehensive and met all statutory duties. There was work required to meet the recommendations from the trust’s auditors.

There was good partnership working and collaboration with health and social care stakeholders. The trust understood the duty to collaborate and work together in the best interests of patients and the community. The trust was making sound progress around environmental sustainability with some projects having major impacts in reducing carbon emissions.

However, there remained some staff who did not feel safe to speak up or felt it would mean detriment to their career. There were also concerns around safe levels of staffing, staff morale and wellbeing and some staff being concerned, despite assurances and the Chief Executive Officer’s commitment to patient safety, that finance was more important than patient safety.

Updated 26 March 2015

We saw good evidence of learning from incidents, but could not be assured that it was universal.

At Rowley Regis Hospital we found prescription medicines that were not appropriately stored, together with out-of-date clinical equipment.

Staff were competent to carry out their role, and identified and responded to patient risk in a way that ensured patient safety. There were vacancies across the service, which meant caseloads were increased for some nursing and therapy teams. Staff told us that they were happy to come to work, and spoke positively of the contribution they made to patient care.

The service was effective and caring. Care and treatment was evidence-based, and staff followed current best practice recommendations. There were positive examples of multidisciplinary working across internal services, and between local healthcare organisations. All patients and carers spoke positively about the care provided, and we observed staff delivering compassionate care.

The service was responsive to patient need, and patients were treated in their own homes or community clinics where possible. Services engaged with patients to gain feedback and improve service provision.

Many services had practices in place to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. An example of this was the integrated care services (iCARES), an open access integrated care service that managed adults with long-term conditions.

Staff felt that hospital services and senior managers did not understand the role of community services, and many staff felt that community services were the 'poor relation' compared to acute services.

There were notable examples of innovation; these included the community alcohol service that had integrated into the trust, and the Cape Hill district nursing team, who participated in an 'Aspiring to Clinical Excellence' project. The service promoted clinical audits, projects and research pilots.

We saw good evidence of learning from incidents, but could not be assured that it was universal.

At Rowley Regis Hospital we found prescription medicines that were not appropriately stored, together with out-of-date clinical equipment.

Staff were competent to carry out their role, and identified and responded to patient risk in a way that ensured patient safety. There were vacancies across the service, which meant caseloads were increased for some nursing and therapy teams. Staff told us that they were happy to come to work, and spoke positively of the contribution they made to patient care.

The service was effective and caring. Care and treatment was evidence-based, and staff followed current best practice recommendations. There were positive examples of multidisciplinary working across internal services, and between local healthcare organisations. All patients and carers spoke positively about the care provided, and we observed staff delivering compassionate care.

The service was responsive to patient need, and patients were treated in their own homes or community clinics where possible. Services engaged with patients to gain feedback and improve service provision.

Many services had practices in place to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. An example of this was the integrated care services (iCARES), an open access integrated care service that managed adults with long-term conditions.

Staff felt that hospital services and senior managers did not understand the role of community services, and many staff felt that community services were the 'poor relation' compared to acute services.

There were notable examples of innovation; these included the community alcohol service that had integrated into the trust, and the Cape Hill district nursing team, who participated in an 'Aspiring to Clinical Excellence' project. The service promoted clinical audits, projects and research pilots.

Updated 17 November 2015

Children and young people (CYP) services was rated outstanding overall. During the inspection we met with managers, staff, children and parents in a range of community settings. We observed care being delivered in mainstream and special schools, clinics and in children’s own homes. We saw excellent innovations in practice to improve care and treatment for children and young people for example a ‘tactile cue’ called ‘TaSSeLs’ and a computer ‘app’ to help children learn and develop. CYP Staff worked with other professionals and external organisations such as CAMHs (child and adolescent mental health services) and social services.

There was evidence that the services for children and young people were delivered in line with best practice guidance and local agreement. Staff were dedicated, professional and well supported. We saw strong local leadership across all community CYP services. Staff told us that they were a valued member of their respective teams. We saw that care was child centred and individualised across all CYP services.

There was an effective system in place to report and learn from adverse incidents, errors, near misses and complaints. We saw care was delivered to promote dignity and respect, and found staff were very responsive to children and their families’ needs.

There was a robust safeguarding process in place and infection control audits demonstrated that infection control guidance was effective. We saw infection control practices across CYP services was good. Environmental observations and reviews of records showed there was a high level of cleanliness across the sites and the availability of safe, clean equipment was generally good.

Generally, staffing levels across CYP services were good, we saw the trust had on going challenges with recruitment of health visitors, and no assessment of ‘fine motor skills’ for children with complex needs by occupational therapists due to a capacity issue. However, this did not adversely affect patient satisfaction and the trust had a robust recruitment plan in place.

Management of medicines were in line with trust policy. The trust supported staff to ensure that their mandatory training needs were met and individual training needs identified. Staff were given supervision and annual appraisals. Staff expressed satisfaction with the levels of support from their local managers.

The leadership of CYP services was supportive and nurturing, senior managers were visible and well liked. Staff told us they thought the executive team “did a good job” in leading the trust and there was strong communication networks throughout CYP services with staff feeling well informed.

We saw local and senior managers encouraged and supported staff to be creative with innovations in practice. CYP services received few complaints, and people we spoke to during the inspection were very complimentary about the staff and the quality of the service they received.

Updated 5 April 2019

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

• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents 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.
• The service used safety monitoring results well. Staff collected safety information and shared it with staff, patients and visitors. The service used information to improve the service.
• The service mostly controlled infection risk well. Staff generally kept themselves, equipment and the premises clean. They used control measures to prevent the spread of infection.
• The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.
• Staff kept appropriate records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date and available to all staff providing care.
• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse and to provide the right care and treatment.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness. Managers checked to make sure staff followed guidance.
• Staff gave patients enough food and drink to meet their needs and improve their health. They used special feeding and hydration techniques when necessary. The service made adjustments for patients’ religious, cultural and other preferences.
• The service monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to improve them. They compared local results with those of other services to learn from them.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance.
• Staff of different kinds worked together as a team to benefit patients. Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals supported each other to provide good care.
• Staff always had access to up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive information on patients’ care and treatment. All staff had access to an electronic records system that they could all update.
• Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness.
• Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.
• Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress.
• The trust planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people.
• People could access the service when they needed it. Waiting times from treatment were and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were in line with good practice.
• The service took account of patients’ individual needs.
• The trust had managers at all levels with the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.
• The trust had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and workable plans to turn it into action developed with involvement from staff, patients, and key groups representing the local community.
• Managers across the trust promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.
• The trust used a systematic approach to continually improve the quality of its services and safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care would flourish.
• The trust had effective systems for identifying risks, planning to eliminate or reduce them, and coping with both the expected and unexpected.
• The trust collected, analysed, managed and used information well to support all its activities, using secure electronic systems with security safeguards.
• The trust engaged well with patients, staff, the public and local organisations to plan and manage appropriate services, and collaborated with partner organisations effectively.
• The trust was committed to improving services by learning from when things go well and when they go wrong, promoting training, research and innovation.

However,

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff, however not all staff were fully compliant in training the trust deemed essential for safe and efficient service delivery and personal safety.
• Emergency resuscitation trolleys had no security tags on the drawers to alert staff to tampering with the content. Resuscitation trollies were therefor not tamperproof
• Staff did not achieve uniformly high standards in recording and communicating decisions about CPR and that DNACPR forms in line with best practice.
• When monitoring and scoring vital signs nurses did not always take urgent action to review the care of the patient and call for specialist help when necessary.
• Mental capacity assessments completed by staff were not always detailed, compliant with legislation and best practice, or undertaken in a way and at a time that recognised patient’s abilities.
• Most but not all staff were up to date with their yearly appraisal.
• Care plans did not describe the care needs in an individualised way.
• Although the service treated concerns and complaints seriously, the time taken to investigate complaints was not in line with trust policy.
• Ward risk registers did not reflect all risks staff identified in the area.

Updated 31 October 2017

Palliative and end of life services at within Sandwell & City Hospitals NHS Trust provides an integrated service within both within Sandwell & City Hospitals and the community. The community include patients own homes, home from home beds, home from hospice beds and the Heart of Sandwell Day Hospice in Rowley Regis Hospital.

We have rated end of life services overall as outstanding. We rated the safe domain as good and effective, responsive, caring and well led domains as outstanding. This is because:

• Experienced staff provided a compassionate and responsive evidence based service for end of life care patients.

• The service provided comprehensive joined-up care with access to care and treatment in both acute hospitals and in the community, seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

• The service followed evidenced based guidance incorporating NICE Guidance including NICE QS13 End of Life Care for Adults (Nov 2001/updated Mar 2017) and The Five Priorities for Care of the Dying Person (Leadership Alliance 2015).

• Staff were knowledgeable about the trust’s incident reporting process and we saw concerns were investigated and learning shared.

• The service had one single point of access for patients and health professionals to coordinate end of life care services for patients known as the Hub. This meant patients received the right care at the right time in the right place.

• The palliative and end of life care service was very well developed across the trust and held in high regard both by staff within the trust and other agencies.

• End of life and palliative care was a priority for the trust. The service was well developed, staffed, and managed as part of the iCARES directorate.

• There was a clear governance structure from community services and department level up to board level. Good governance was a high priority for the service and was monitored at regular governance meetings.

• Staff were proud of their service, and spoke highly about their roles and responsibilities, to provide high levels of care to end of life patients.

• Patients were involved in their care and were enabled to make choices. This included choosing the place where they wished to receive palliative care and where they would prefer to die. The palliative and end of life care team ensured that arrangements weremade quickly so they could be within their preferred place of care.

• Advanced Care Plans and Supportive Care Plans (SCP) were used across the trust for end of life patients. They were used as a person centred individual care record to include all the needs and wishes of a patient and their family.

However:

• The trust’s ‘Anticipatory Medication Guidelines’ was due for review in September 2016 but no updated guidance was available. We could not be assured staff were following the most up-to-date guidelines.