St Hugh's 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remained good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

We looked for evidence people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked people’s privacy and dignity was respected, and they understood their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff respected and upheld people’s privacy and dignity during their care or treatment. We observed compassionate good quality care. All people we spoke to were happy and cared for. They felt staff were very caring, considerate and informative. We heard staff put people at ease, and ensured they understood everything. People’s compliments were displayed in waiting areas.

Staff took time to interact with people and those close to them respectfully and responsively. They gave considerate and compassionate care to people throughout the procedure. Staff ensured they never rushed outpatients. They invited those with any concerns to attend a follow up appointment. This improved peoples feedback around feeling listened to.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of people and how they related to their care.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Hospital and department leads were committed to inclusive care. Staff identified and documented any communication and physical support needs people had. We heard OPD had a patient with Aspergers syndrome who staff offered a meeting and ward tour before their surgery. They were shown the theatre reception and met the theatre manager to better prepare. They were also accommodated on their preferred side of the ward near the nurse station.

The department layout considered people who were confused or cognitively impaired. Staff would inform their carers or relatives if their appointments could not run on time.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff gave people and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. They offered chaperones, if people wanted someone to accompany them to appointments. Chaperone signs were displayed in other languages such as Polish and Arabic. We heard this service was well used by female outpatients attending uro-gynaecology or gastro-intestinal clinics.

Staff understood the emotional and social impact a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing. People were prompted to ask consultants or nursing staff the four BRAN questions – benefits, risks, alternatives, nothing. This helped ensure staff made the right choice and involved people in decisions about their care and treatment.

The service used ‘you said, we did’ feedback to better involve outpatients in service improvements. For example, staff made QR code feedback cards available in the department. This had increased patient engagement and feedback.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service had systems to help care for people in need of additional support or specialist intervention. Provider staff groups from different departments including OPD had formed a ‘Unity@HMT’ project group and principles. Staff representatives had developed a framework to support people who may have dementia, neurodiversity or learning disability needs. This work focussed on making services more accessible and tailored to people.

The OPD team also accommodated outpatients’ mental health needs and mobility issues. The provider had appointed a neurodiversity champion to ‘transform care’. During our assessment leads were developing bespoke ‘reasonable adjustments’ training to better identify the needs of this patient demographic.

Managers planned and organised services to meet the local population’s changing needs. The service used ‘you said, we did’ feedback to better recognize reasonable adjustments for outpatients. For example, the bookings team could place people on active monitoring. This meant staff could provide more personalized care and improved flexibility in planning surgery dates.

People, relatives and carers told us they knew how to complain or raise concerns. The service clearly displayed information on how to do this in outpatient areas.

People could access the hospital’s online complaints form. Senior staff promptly reviewed and responded to concerns. The department followed the hospital’s three-stage complaints process. The hospital director or senior leadership onsite handled and managed Stage 1 complaints. Leads investigated all complaints and sent a full response within 20 working days. In the event investigations took longer, the hospital director updated complainants promptly with holding letters.

The OPD received 16 formal complaints in the six months before our assessment from June to December 2025. Four of these complaints were categorised as ‘attitude of medical staff’. Another four related to appointments, either being cancelled or failing to provide follow ups. Two related to clinical treatment.

Two complaints had a delayed response time over 20 working days.

Leads would enact any opportunities identified from hospital wide complaints to enhance the patient experience. They shared the department’s complaint themes and any learning at the hospital’s clinical governance meetings. We saw recent complaint response letters from the hospital director. These clearly outlined the main issues, who was consulted, how the service investigated the outpatient’s complaint, their findings and conclusion.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centered care.

Leads in IPC and patient safety feedback learning and themes from recent training and national conferences such as personalised care. OPD staff teams had focused on empowering colleagues in their roles to help prevent burnout and promote psychological safety.

A senior nurse had recently developed an idea the team had since adopted. The OPD nurses’ office had a whiteboard where staff could add different magnetic faces beside their name to indicate their mood. The initiative helped staff stay aware of, and responsive to, each other’s emotions. This ensured they better supported one another whilst caring for people.

Staff told us their workloads were manageable, and they always felt safe at work. The department had an emergency call system, well-lit corridors, swipe card access, closed circuit television (CCTV) and an emergency call bell system which all contributed to staff safety. It was extremely rare any staff would be lone working. In an emergency, staff could contact the Resident Medical Officer (RMO) or relevant ward team. Most specialties did not run regular weekend clinics, except for Saturday mornings. The hospital had a clinical on-call manager at all times.

Employees could share their ideas and feedback through several accessible channels. OPD meeting minutes demonstrated how the department shared successes, actively listened to staff feedback and implemented adaptations in response. We saw positive feedback about the service from staff members, a regional university and its student nurses.

Staff and patients could access the hospital’s British Menopause Society accredited specialists. They provided women with expert care and empowerment during their menopause journey.

Staff could access a wellbeing app on their smartphones. This provided employee assistance such as financial support which signposted other resources and guidance.

Staff were involved with charity events and causes such as Christmas jumper day. Over Christmas staff were given vouchers and invited to team meals.

Any staff suggestions with line managers could be raised during individual meetings.

The OPD adopted a transparent ‘You said, we did’ approach to patient and staff feedback. Leads implemented actions from this feedback. We saw these posters displayed in staff areas. For example, in response to appointments running late, leads introduced television screen updates with wait times visible in both waiting areas. This helped outpatients feel informed and less anxious.