St Luke's (Cheshire) 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

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

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service focused patient care around individual needs and preferences. We saw examples of how the service had supported patients and their families with personalised care.

Families we spoke with told us how the service had listened to their needs and effectively communicated and documented care plans and preferences of their loved ones.

A volunteer befriending service was available for patients to provide additional social support, helping patients feel less isolated and more connected if wanted. This offered opportunities to make new memories and revisit old ones and human contact.

The service used passports for patients with mental health conditions, autism, learning disabilities and dementia. A dementia nurse had been appointed to support the service. The hospice provided an 8 week structured support programme for carers of people with dementia.

Staff understood and responded to the communication needs of patients with a disability or sensory loss.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service provided support groups for patients and their families as part of the day unit service.

Multidisciplinary teams worked together to provide continuity of care for the patient.

The service had been awarded the Navajo Merseyside and Cheshire LGBTIQA Charter mark in recognition of progress and on-going commitment towards LGBTIQA people. They promoted understanding of the barriers to inclusion of the LGBTIQA communities in both employment and service provision design and delivery.

The service worked with homeless agencies, substance misuse services and LGBT groups to support terminally ill patients to ensure their needs were met. The service had received positive feedback.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

There were many leaflets for patients and loved ones about the care, treatment and services offered at the hospice. However, written information was not available in different formats and languages.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had received 1 formal complaint in the last 5 years. This complaint was upheld following a lengthy investigation. Learning was identified and changes were made to the service.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. We saw “how to complain information posters” in all areas of the hospice. Compliments and concerns could also be fed back on the hospice website.

The service focused on care and support for patients and listened to their needs and preferences to provide holistic care.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients were referred to the hospice which then followed a triage system to ensure appropriate care and treatment could be given. Services included workshops, bereavement counselling, holistic therapy, symptom management, respite and end of life care.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients – for example, people with mobility issues were provided with walking aids or a wheelchair.

The premises was accessible to people with mobility as all facilities were on the ground floor.

Referrals into the service were triaged and assessed according to priority of patient need and service capacity. The service worked with the community to support discharges home.

The service reviewed patient demographics and worked with the local community to plan improvements. For example, the service supported homelessness and substance misuse patients to access care and treatment in a timely manner.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

Dementia support services were available. A range of workshops provided support for carers of people living with dementia and music therapy sessions for patients with dementia. This service received positive feedback and improved experiences for carers and patients.

The hospice worked with homeless services to support people from vulnerable circumstances and ensure there was no inequality to access services for respite and end of life care.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff create personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings on admission to the service.

Care for people who are nearing the end of their life was managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way. Families we spoke with told us they felt supported. Staff told us bereavement services were offered when required.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.

There was a skilled team who offered a listening ear to discuss advanced care planning and end of life care. The day hospice services offered face to face meetings in a safe place and comfortable environment giving time for patients to talk openly about their future wishes.

We reviewed 4 Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) records. Relatives and next of kin were involved in the discussion and recorded correctly on the electronic patient record.

Advanced care plans were reviewed and amended when needed.