Horton midwife-led maternity, Banbury is upgraded to 'good' - some improvements still needed

The inspection was undertaken to see if improvements had been made since October 2023 when the Banbury maternity service was rated as requires improvement.

Inspectors assessed 32 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.

"We found the quality of care had improved. However, there were still areas where improvement was needed,” the CQC report said.

The report comes at the same time the JR maternity unit was also rated ‘good’, although some safety concerns remain, with the ‘safe’ element of the inspection gaining a ‘requires improvement’ rating.

The CQC’s new report into the Horton maternity unit says: “At the last assessment there were breaches of regulation relating to safe care and treatment and good governance.

“At this assessment, improvements were found and the service was no longer in breach of safe care and treatment or good governance.

“At this assessment… (we found) the service adopted a holistic approach to risk management, providing care that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do what mattered most to them.”

The CQC team was satisfied there were sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff who received appropriate support, supervision and development and teams worked effectively together to meet individual needs.

The service assessed and managed infection risks effectively, taking action to prevent the spread of infection. Medicines and treatments were managed safely, with people supported to be involved in planning their care, including when changes occurred.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to delivering effective care and treatment. Care and treatment were routinely monitored to drive continuous improvement and ensure outcomes were consistently positive, meeting clinical standards and people’s expectations.

Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes, responding promptly to minimise discomfort, concern or distress. The service also prioritised staff wellbeing, supporting and enabling them to consistently deliver person-centred care.

The provider ensured timely access to care, support and treatment. Staff and leaders also listened to the experiences of people most likely to face inequality in outcomes and adapted care and support accordingly.

The service promoted a positive speaking-up culture, where staff felt confident their voices would be heard. There was a clear commitment to valuing diversity and fostering an inclusive and fair workforce culture.

However, inspectors found advice‑only calls to the 24‑hour telephone advice and screening service, which did not progress to labour assessment, lacked formal triage prioritisation and had limited audit oversight.

This reduced assurance regarding consistency and governance. Handovers did not incorporate safety huddle methodology to systematically review patient safety incidents, current risks and shared learning.

Documentation was not always completed to the expected standard. The service did not consistently detect and mitigate potential risks and aspects of the facilities did not always fully support the delivery of safe care.

There were gaps in audit coverage and associated assurance processes.

People who used the service told inspectors they received care that was kind, compassionate and respectful. Staff had maintained their dignity and privacy and provided emotional and practical support.

Communication had been clear and accessible, ensuring they could make informed decisions. Care had been person-centred, culturally sensitive, and responsive. People had felt safe and been provided with high-quality treatment.