KEMP Hospice

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We rated responsive as good.

We assessed all 7 quality statements within responsive: person centred care, care provision, integration and continuity, providing information, listening to and involving patients, equity in access, equity in experience and outcomes and planning for the future.

We found:

Patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Decisions were made in partnership with patients who used the services and those close to them about how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs and decisions about their care.

Patient’s care plans fully reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Patients understand their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided.

Patients could receive the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service makes reasonable adjustments where necessary.

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

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. Managers recognised the need to offer day hospice support to patients at every stage of their illness. They recognised the demand for the service was high and were planning to change the location to a more accessible and purpose-built location.

The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. For example, where patients struggled to attend the day hospice, staff visited the patient at home and arranged for activities to be delivered at home. Person-centred care was observed through discussions at handovers, referral meetings and team meetings. The team worked together with the patient to consider any unmet needs or adjustments needed for the patient to attend the day hospice. A patient told us ‘if you tell them, you have any special needs, they’ll do it for you’.

Patients or their relatives could be referred for support in the carer support group and bereavement support if required.

There was partnership working to make sure that care and treatment met the diverse needs of communities. Staff worked with other services involved in the patients care to look at how they can best meet the patient’s needs. Patients had regular one-to-one time with their nurse, and the staff members would regularly attend multidisciplinary team meetings with the wider team. This ensured the individual needs and preferences of the patients and their family or supporters, were central to care and treatment planning.

Care, support and treatment were easily accessible, including physical access to the service. Managers had maintained the building to meet the needs of patients. For example, there were accessible entrances and facilities. The 2025 patient survey showed 85% of respondents considered the service was easy or very easy to access.

Patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. Care plans fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

The service had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and local communities. This enabled the service to deliver care that was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. KEMP Hospice complimented other palliative care services by offering additional support to make decisions about the future and symptom and pain control. For example, providing complementary therapy to support pain management and a focus on health and well-being to improve general quality of life.

People received care and treatment from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. Managers recognised they were receiving referrals for a younger age group. As a result, they changed their model to make it more flexible to attend alongside employment.

There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. Staff worked closely with other palliative care services and nurses provided a care co-ordination approach. They regularly liaised with other services to ensure patients received appropriate care and treatment. They advocated for patients where required and where there were changes or concerns, they requested a multi-disciplinary meeting to review the patients care.

Patient’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. Staff were very responsive to patient’s needs. We observed the specialist nurse made adjustments to their day to enable them to do a home visit for a patient that had not attended, and they were concerned about. Staff offered activities on a one-to-one basis should a patient not want to attend in a group setting.

Delivering and co-ordinating services considered the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care. There was an inclusion lead nurse in place. The hospice had undertaken work to review demographics of the local community, and a plan was in place to increase access from different groups.

The service gave accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Patients who used the service, their family, friends, and carers were provided with information that was accessible, safe and secure and supported their rights and choices. Staff explained the purpose of the service in supporting their palliative care journey. Patients were advised what to do and who to contact if they needed medical advice.

Patient’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. These needs were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff sought additional training or guidance from other services to support effective communication. For example, where patients used digital communication tools, staff sought training to use them so they could best support the patient.

Information was tailored to individual needs. People who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. Staff had access to communication aids to help patients become partners in their care and treatment. Staff made reasonable adjustments for disabled people, provided interpreting and translation for people who did not speak English as a first language and for deaf people who used British Sign Language. Information was also available in easy read for patients who had a learning disability.

Patients knew how to access their health and care records and decide which personal information can be shared with other people, including their family, care staff, school or college.

Information about people that was collected and shared met data protection legislation requirements. All patient information was now stored on an electronic patient record. Staff ensured patient personal information was secure.

It was easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There were procedures in place guiding patients about how to complain and provide feedback. Information about how to give feedback or make a complaint was shared with patients at the initial assessment. There were also posters displayed in the day hospice. From November 2024 to October 2025, the service received 2 complaints in relation to the clinical service. Managers dealt with complaints promptly and in an open and transparent manner. Patients, their family, friends and other carers felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. All patients and carers we spoke to were overwhelmingly positive about the service and did not feel there was anything to complain about.

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues. Most patients knew how to do this. Patients told us where they had given feedback it was acted on.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement. Whilst the service did not receive many complaints, they were open to receiving any feedback to improve. Patients were encouraged to complete feedback questionnaires about their experience of the services. Staff collected the responses and evaluated these. Staff used the feedback to identify opportunities for improvement.

Staff and leaders engaged with people about changes and developments to the service. For example, staff were consulted with when planning the hospice strategy.

Patients could access care, treatment and support in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

The service made sure everyone referred to the day hospice could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Most referrals received were from GPs, palliative care services or other hospices. Referrals could be made using an online referral form or by contacting the service by telephone. A partner organisation we spoke to provided positive feedback about the service including how accessible and essential it was to support patients who needed palliative care. Other professionals fed back ‘the referral process was easy to follow’. They knew any referral made would be dealt with ‘efficiently and quickly’. Staff worked well with other organisations involved in the patients care and treatment to support them to access the day hospice.

Appointments were usually offered within 5 working days of the referral. The initial assessment appointments were offered as a home visit. This enabled staff to assess the patient in their own environment and assess their suitability prior to attending the day hospice. Where they could not attend, staff considered how the service could meet their needs at home. Staff also arranged transport for patients so they could attend and receive the benefits of building networks with other patients.

All new referrals and assessments were discussed in weekly meetings where staff worked together to ensure a plan was in place to meet patients’ individual needs. Patients were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. Patients care plans outlined how any accessibility issues would be overcome. Staff were passionate about making sure each patient could get the best out of the service. A staff member told us ‘we only get one chance to get this right’. The service made reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressed communication barriers and ensured their premises were accessible.

The physical premises and equipment were accessible. Whilst the building was not purpose built for a day hospice; the service made adjustments and maintained the building to ensure it was safe and accessible. Patient areas were fully accessible throughout and different floors were accessible by a ramp or lift. The hospice had an outdoor garden which was accessible for wheelchair users and people with mobility difficulties.

Care, support and treatment was not always tailored in response to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Whilst staff and leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, there was limited evidence the service had acted to improve access for hard-to-reach groups. For example, managers talked about how the local travelling or Bangladeshi community did not access the service. However, there had not been any action to build relationships and create pathways into the day hospice for these groups. Managers recognised this, it was on the service risk register and had plans to improve equity in access in 2026.

However, the service did have links with other organisations who supported those with protected characteristics such as learning disability services and religious organisations. The service had also developed a more flexible approach to day hospice services because of an increase in referrals from a younger and working age range.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Patients were supported by staff to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

All patients underwent an initial assessment which was a holistic assessment and an opportunity for staff to explore the patient’s wishes for now and the future. Patients’ decisions and what mattered to them were delivered through personalised care plans that were shared with others who may need to be informed. Advance care plans were developed with patients and those close to them, outlining preferences for future care and support. This process was based on recognised approaches to ensure patients received the care they wanted at the end of their life.

Staff provided opportunities for patients to discuss and explore their wishes at each visit to the day hospice. Staff referred patients for holistic interventions including creative art and music therapy, complementary therapy and exercise. These activities were also an opportunity to talk to other patients and discussions about the future often took place. Patients told us staff were sensitive when talking about the future which was done at their pace. One patient told us ‘staff involve me in my care and when I need to talk about my future, they are here for me’.

When patients wanted to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wished. During handover meetings the resuscitation status of each patient was discussed. Staff also planned as a team the best way to approach these conversations with patients, so it was managed well, protecting their psychological safety.

When patients’ future care preferences were for greater independence and fewer care interventions that were likely to benefit them, professionals worked together to support them to achieve their goals.