You are here

St Luke's Hospice Outstanding

We have edited the inspection report for St Luke's Hospice from 12 January 2017 in order to remove some text which should not have been included in this report. This has not affected the rating given to this service.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 June 2012
Date of Publication: 20 June 2012
Inspection Report published 20 June 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. The provider was meeting this standard.

User experience

We talked to three patients and two relatives who explained they felt their privacy and dignity was always maintained.

We observed care in the in-patient area and saw people's privacy and dignity was maintained by members of staff at all times during our inspection. We talked to three members of staff who explained there were no challenges to ensuring people's privacy and dignity was maintained and respected.

Other evidence

The hospice employed a 'service user coordinator' who used a range of methods to regularly seek the views of patients and their families. We talked to the deputy chief executive and service user coordinator who provided a number of examples of how people had been consulted and involved in decisions regarding service provision at the hospice. For example, in the day centre where a maximum of 20 patients attend each day, a consultation exercise had resulted in patients wearing name badges during their weekly attendance. This enabled patients to identify each other's first names to facilitate conversation and assisted members of staff to identify people who used the service. A survey of patient’s showed the decision to use name badges had been welcomed.

The hospice facilitated a 'carers evening' every six weeks. This service was provided to support carers of patients who primarily attended the day centre along with carers of people who receive care in the community. The service user coordinator explained how a survey of carers had resulted in the time of the carers evening being extended to two hours which allowed a more flexible 'drop in' approach for people who wished to attend.

We found the hospice had undertaken various work streams in relation to their equality strategy. For example, a piece of work had been undertaken to identify ways of increasing the use of hospice services by ethnic minority groups. Staff records showed members of staff had undertaken equality and diversity training.

We found a range of patient and relative information was available for people who used the service, including large print versions for people with sight difficulties. The service user coordinator explained there were plans to shortly ensure information would be available in braille along with an audio version.