The Prince of Wales Hospice

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.

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

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

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff interacted with patients and those close to them in a warm and caring way. They introduced themselves, spoke politely, listened carefully and took time to respond to people’s needs. Staff were discreet in their conversations and avoided discussing personal information where it could be overheard.

Patients told us staff treated them well and were consistently kind, including during personal care and at times of distress. Staff knocked before entering rooms, waited for a response, gained consent, used the patients preferred name and ensured people were appropriately covered. Care was delivered in a way that supported privacy and dignity, including maintaining modesty and supporting people to dress according to their preferences wherever possible.

The environment supported privacy and dignity. There were suitable private spaces for sensitive conversations and for breaking bad news. Staff used these appropriately and ensured voices were kept low when discussing personal information in shared areas. Patient information was handled confidentially. All patients looked well presented, rooms appeared clean and tidy and were personalised for the individual patient.

Staff were attentive to patients who were anxious, distressed, confused or frightened. They responded calmly and compassionately, offering reassurance and adjusting their approach to individual needs.

People were given information in a way they could understand and were involved in decisions about their care as much as possible. Patients and families felt informed and included and were signposted to additional support services when needed. With one family member telling us “staff really helped with information on those difficult conversations”

Patients described feeling emotionally supported by staff. There was a clear focus on understanding what mattered to people and providing care that respected their values, preferences and dignity at all times.

It was clear to see that staff really cared about their patients and went the extra mile to support them, one patient we spoke to told us, “I’m glad I’m going to die here, I feel safe”.

The service consistently treated people as individuals and delivered person‑centred care that reflected patients’ preferences, needs and values. Staff took time to get to know patients and understand what mattered most to them, and this informed care planning and daily interactions. We heard of multiple examples of staff supporting patients to fulfil their wishes despite potential risks.

The service recognised the importance of carers and families. Staff supported patients who relied on carers by involving them in care where appropriate and with consent. Carer and family facilities, such as sofa beds, were available in rooms to enable relatives to stay and participate in care. Patients told us that staff “respect visiting time with my family”. Relatives told us they felt reassured and confident leaving their loved one in the care of the hospice.

Patient's families and friends were encouraged to remain involved with the service for as long as they wished after their loved ones had reached the end of their life. Staff told us how patient's families were appreciative of the care they were offered and showed this through fund raising activities to support the service.

Staff listened to patients and adapted care to meet individual needs, with one patient telling us, “they pick up on how I am feeling”. They encouraged people to be actively involved in decisions about their care and ensured patients felt informed throughout their hospice journey. Information was shared with families and carers in line with patient preferences, which were reviewed as needs changed.

When patients or relatives became distressed, staff responded compassionately and ensured privacy and dignity, including offering quiet spaces.

Religious, cultural and social needs were respected. Staff asked about individual beliefs and preferences on admission and responded appropriately. Chaplaincy services were offered but not imposed, and patients could decline spiritual support if they wished. Patients were supported to maintain social and cultural links, including flexible visiting arrangements and celebrating important life events where possible.

Staff informed us that pets were welcome at any time. A racehorse had visited the unit in 2025 as part of an emotional wellbeing initiative which was deemed a key part of good specialist clinical care. There were 2 pat therapy dogs that were to be welcomed regularly at the unit – both were still undergoing some checks and training.

The hospice promoted people’s independence and supported them to have choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff took time to understand what mattered most to each person and respected their rights, preferences and priorities.

People were supported to make informed decisions about their care wherever possible. Staff provided information in a way that people could understand and encouraged them to be actively involved in decisions, including those about daily routines, symptom management and future care planning. When people needed support to communicate or make decisions, staff made reasonable adjustments and involved family, carers or advocates in line with the person’s wishes and legal frameworks.

Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly to reflect changes in people’s needs, choices and goals. People were supported to maintain independence in daily activities for as long as they wished and were able, with staff offering support that promoted dignity rather than doing things for them unnecessarily.

Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, staff acted in their best interests and involved those important to them. Decisions were individual, proportionate and focused on respecting the person’s values, beliefs and previously expressed wishes.

People’s immediate needs were responded to promptly and compassionately. Call bells were within reach of patients, and staff responded to requests for assistance in a timely way. During our observations, staff were attentive and checked on patients regularly, not just when providing treatment or at mealtimes. One patient told us, “staff are quick and responsive, they are on time with the syringe drivers, as if they are on a bleep test”.

Patients appeared clean, well cared for and supported to maintain dignity. Items such as glasses, hearing aids, walking aids and drinks were kept within reach to promote comfort and independence.

Patients with reduced mobility were supported appropriately. Staff assisted with moving and positioning, and environmental measures were used to reduce falls risk. Patients were encouraged to mobilise safely where possible, with support tailored to individual needs.

Staff provided emotional support to patients and those close to them. They were empathetic and sensitive to the stress and uncertainty associated with life‑limiting illness, changes in treatment or withdrawal of active care. Patients and relatives told us staff were kind, reassuring and responsive when support was needed.

Staff understood the emotional and social impact of illness on patients and families. They had access to, and made referrals to, specialist support services such as bereavement support, dementia services or specialist nursing input where appropriate.

Patients told us they felt listened to and believed staff understood and anticipated their needs. Staff took proactive steps to prevent discomfort or distress, demonstrating a caring and responsive approach in meeting people’s immediate needs.

Staff told us they felt valued, supported and treated with kindness and respect. Leaders recognised the emotional demands of their roles and promoted a culture where staff wellbeing was taken seriously. Staff said they felt able to speak openly if they were struggling and knew how to access support.

Rotas allowed for appropriate breaks and rest periods, and staff told us workloads were generally manageable. Where pressures arose, additional support was put in place and staff were able to escalate concerns. Staff gave an example of an unexpected staff absence during a night shift, combined with patient deterioration, which meant they were unable to take their full break. Staff were paid for the additional time worked, and a follow-up discussion took place with leaders to support and safeguard staff wellbeing.

Staff had access to drinking water, rest facilities and safe spaces for breaks. Information about rest, leave, wellbeing and flexible working was included in staff handbooks and induction materials.

The service had systems in place to monitor and support staff wellbeing. This included access to mental health first aiders, reflection sessions, debriefs following traumatic incidents and referrals to wellbeing or counselling services when required.

Staff feedback was gathered through surveys, team meetings and one‑to‑one conversations. Staff told us they felt listened to and part of a supportive team. Recognition schemes and informal feedback were used to acknowledge staff contributions and good practice. Staff described a strong sense of teamwork and belonging.

There was oversight of workload, staffing and resources, and leaders monitored the impact of pressures on staff wellbeing. Flexible working arrangements were supported where possible, and staff had access to the equipment and resources they needed to do their jobs safely.

We reviewed the latest staff survey from 2024. This showed 55% of hospice staff did not agree that their “pay was competitive in comparison to people doing similar work in the sector”. Also 49% of hospice staff did not agree that they “rarely get stressed at work”.

In response we heard how leaders conducted an annual benchmarking exercise of hospice terms and conditions compared to the NHS, other local hospices and the charity sector to ensure pay, terms and conditions remained appropriate for the organisation.

We saw leader actions aimed at reducing stress included the implementation of a ward acuity tool, reflection sessions, one to one meetings which focused on wellbeing, an engagement and wellbeing group and a staff wellbeing room.