Holybourne Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

As part of the inspection, we spoke to 14 patients.

Patients we spoke to stated that staff treated them with kindness.

Most patients we spoke to stated that staff supported them to understand and manage their own care treatment or condition. Doctors discussed patients’ care and treatment with them in weekly ward rounds. Doctors also talked to patients about the potential side effects of their medication.

Most patients understood how to make a complaint about their care, including speaking with their named nurse, the ward manager, or asking for support from an advocate to make a formal complaint. Staff felt that they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients.

Staff directed patients to other services and supported them to access those services if they needed help.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Staff across all the wards showed a good understanding of patients’ needs, their illnesses and their social circumstances outside the hospital. At ward round and the daily planning meeting, staff discussed patients’ personal preferences, risks and physical health needs.

Staff followed policy to keep patient information confidential. For example, patient information written on white boards in the nurses’ offices could not be seen from outside the office.

During our observations of the wards, we noted that patients approached staff on several occasions to talk to them. On each occasion, staff responded immediately, kindly and positively. We saw members of staff engaging with patients on the communal area on the wards. The overall atmosphere of the wards was calm and therapeutic. Staff were discreet, respectful, and responsive when caring for patients.

Patients told us that they felt involved in their care and that they were able to make choices on what support they received.

Patients said staff helped them with their spiritual need, including attending a local church and mosque and arranging for an Iman to visit the ward. We saw this recorded in care notes.

Patients told us that their dietary needs were being met. For example, vegetarian and halal options were available.

Staff we spoke to stated that they include patients in their care planning and risk assessments. Patients were able to attend ward rounds, and staff recorded their views. Carers and relatives were actively encouraged to attend ward rounds this could be done remotely or in person with the permission of the patient involved.

Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment and found ways to communicate effectively. Staff told us that they would use an interpreter where appropriate.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received, for example, by completing surveys and attending community meetings on each ward. Community meeting records indicated that patients spoke up about issues of concern to them, ranging from food, environmental issues, and activities. For example, patients raised in April 2025 that they would like to go to the gym, football and have more board games. These were in place at the time of the April 2025 inspection.

Most patients we spoke to stated that their rights were explained to them on admission.

Patients we spoke to stated that they felt involved in their care. Staff stated that they supported patients to make decisions about their own care during ward rounds.

Staff made sure patients could access advocacy services. An advocate attended the hospital on a weekly basis, feedback from the advocate was reviewed as part of the monthly clinical governance meeting.

There was some variability in the recording of patients' views across the wards. Some care plans had little in the way of patient views recorded, even when insight and the ability to express views had improved over the course of their admission.

The service worked to understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

The service had information leaflets available in languages spoken by the patients and local community. Managers made sure staff and patients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received, for example, by completing surveys, and attending community meetings on each ward.

Patients’ dietary requirements were met. The service provided food that met dietary and religious dietary needs, such as halal meats.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. The service provided patients with information on how to complain. Information about the provider’s complaints procedure was also detailed in the patient welcome booklet and leaflets were available.

Patients told us they felt confident to approach staff for advice about the complaints procedure if they needed to.

During our visit we saw on each ward you said we did boards.

The service made adjustments for patients who had a disability. Patients with reduced mobility were assessed on an individual basis and were admitted if the service could meet their needs. All areas of the building were accessible by lift.

All staff we spoke to stated that they felt supported by managers. Staff we spoke to stated that there was opportunities to develop within their roles.

Staff we spoke to stated that morale was positive. Staff we spoke to stated that if they had any concerns they would be able to raise this with managers and they knew who their freedom to speak up guardian was.

The provider had a comprehensive training programme