The Prince of Wales 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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.

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

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

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The hospice delivered care that was responsive, flexible and centred on the individual needs, preferences and values of patients and those close to them.

Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly with patients. Staff ensured people understood their diagnosis, treatment options and plan of care, and encouraged questions and open discussion. Staff told us their aim was to bring the patient’s routine to the hospice. They asked every patient to tell them what the most important thing to them was when admitted and worked with the patient to plan and set goals.

Families, carers and advocates were involved in care and discharge planning where appropriate and with the patient’s consent. Staff supported open communication with those close to the patient and ensured information was shared in line with patient preferences.

The hospice supported choice and dignity, special consideration was given to younger patients at the end of life, with tailored support for parents, partners and children.

The hospice had its own catering team who offered patients food options from its daily varied menu. The catering team were part of the admission process for patients and present at multi-disciplinary safety huddle team meetings so that they were informed about individual nutritional requirements. There was always a well-stocked fridge that had a choice of snacks and refreshments for those wanting to eat outside of routine mealtimes. Different dietary needs were catered for and individual dishes made on request for ‘whatever the patient wants’ when the kitchen staff were working. Rather than have a traditional tea and coffee round, patients requested drinks whenever they wished and staff acknowledged their requests.

Spiritual, cultural and religious needs were respected. Patients were offered access to chaplaincy support but were not required to engage if they did not wish to. Facilities were available for prayer and reflection, and staff were sensitive to needs around modesty.

Staff supported patients and families to discuss and plan future care, including preferred place of care and death. These discussions were handled sensitively, recorded clearly and shared appropriately with the multidisciplinary team to support continuity.

The service had systems and training in place to support people with additional needs, including those living with mental health conditions, learning disabilities, autism, dementia, physical disabilities or sensory impairment. Reasonable adjustments were identified and care pathways were adapted to meet individual needs.

Patients and carers told us their needs were met with compassion and flexibility, and that staff adapted care to suit them as individuals.

The hospice provided care that was responsive to the needs of the local population and well‑integrated with health, social care and voluntary sector partners. Leaders and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the health, social and cultural needs of the communities they served, including people living with frailty, multiple long‑term conditions and those experiencing social deprivation.

Staff were aware that sections of the local community were underrepresented in the patient population and what barriers to treatment they might face.Staff worked with external organisations to try and reach people in these groups to help improve their knowledge and understanding of the hospice and the types of care offered.

Leaders used feedback, activity data, population health information and engagement with local partners to understand local needs and plan services accordingly. The hospice worked closely with the Integrated Care Board and local organisations to shape service development and reduce inequality of access. Where gaps were identified, services were adapted or developed to better meet the needs of specific groups within the community.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services delivered. The estate supported safe, dignified care, and leaders had oversight of maintenance and improvement plans to address any environmental limitations or longer‑term development needs.

The hospice worked closely with other providers to support people with complex needs. Information was shared appropriately to support safe admission, ongoing care and discharge planning. Multidisciplinary working ensured patients had access to specialist input when needed, including nursing, medical, allied health professional and social support.

Bereavement support was offered to families following a patient’s death. This included emotional support, signposting and, where appropriate, dedicated support for children and young people. Some families continued to receive support after bereavement to help them adjust and cope.

The service operated an advice line which was available 24 hours/seven days a week. Advice was provided regarding any issue relating to palliative care such as pain and symptom control or appropriate and ways to support family members. Nursing staff said if they were unable to answer an enquiry, they would refer the caller to the appropriate member of the hospice multi-disciplinary team. A palliative medicine consultant was on call 24 hours a day covering several local services so nursing staff could seek advice and support if needed.

The hospice provided people with clear, accurate and timely information to help them understand their care, treatment and options. Staff gave information verbally and in writing and took time to explain choices, including the risks and benefits of different approaches, in a sensitive and compassionate way.

Patients were supported to understand their prognosis in a way that reflected their wishes and readiness for information. These conversations were handled sensitively, and staff adjusted the level and timing of information based on individual preferences.

Patients and families were given clear information about discharge arrangements, ongoing support and follow‑up care. They were told who to contact for advice if they had concerns or if a patient’s condition changed after discharge. Records showed appropriate signposting to community services and support.

The hospice provided information to patients and families about planning for death, post‑death arrangements and available bereavement support. Staff explained processes clearly and checked understanding, offering further support where needed.

Patients and families knew how to raise concerns or complaints and who to speak to if they were worried about care. Information about this was provided verbally and in written materials.

The service had systems in place to protect patient confidentiality and information governance. Staff understood their responsibilities around data protection and information sharing. Patient information was stored securely, and conversations about care were held discreetly.

The providers website contained an extensive range of information for patients and their loved ones, including information on dying. The website stated that ‘it takes a community to care’ and featured services offered including wellbeing and activities and information for patients and families.

Staff made sure that patients living with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia, received the necessary care to meet all their needs. Staff had access to communication aids to help patients become partners in their care and treatment. Information was accessible on the unit about hospital passports and staff told us these were used and respected when patients presented them.

A digital tablet was used for interpretation and translation for those people who did not have English as a first language. Face to face interpreters could also be requested through the local NHS trust.

Notice boards displayed information on support services that were available locally and nationally. Leaflets were also available throughout the building on many topics and subjects such as safeguarding, the nutritional charter and protecting personal information.

The hospice actively listened to the views and experiences of patients, families, carers and staff and used this information to improve services. Feedback was sought through a range of methods, including conversations, feedback forms, surveys, complaints and compliments.

The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff. The service included people in the investigation of their complaint. In 2025, 660 people rated the service as ‘very good’, 33 people rated the service as ‘good’ and 2 rated the service as average. There was no negative feedback.

Feedback questionnaires were available across the unit that had the headline ‘Tell us how we are doing’. A QR code could be used to access an alternative way to give feedback. There was also a feedback option at the visitor sign-in electronic board at reception.

Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. For example, to increase use of the service to underrepresented groups in the local community.

Complaints were responded to in a timely, open and transparent way, with appropriate apologies where things had gone wrong. Investigations were thorough, and responses explained findings and actions clearly. Most complaints were resolved locally, and learning from complaints was recorded and shared.

Complaints data was reviewed through governance processes to identify themes, trends and any potential inequalities.

The hospice took effective steps to ensure people could access services in a timely way and receive the right care when they needed it. Referral processes were clear, and staff prioritised people based on clinical need. Leaders closely monitored referral activity and the time from referral to initial assessment to ensure people were reviewed promptly.

We reviewed data for the previous five months, which showed the average time from referral to admission was 1.4 days.

There was strong collaboration with other hospices in the locality. Staff worked together to identify urgent need and ensure bed occupancy was used efficiently and proactively, supporting timely access to care for people across the area.

All patient areas were on the ground floor and were fully accessible throughout. In addition, the hospice had large outdoor gardens which were accessible for wheelchair users and people with mobility difficulties. There was also access direct from patients' bedroom onto an outside area. Patients who were too ill to get out of bed could be wheeled outside in their bed if they wished.

The hospice used people’s feedback and other information to actively seek to improve access for patients more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care. Most of the feedback received was positive so they were continually probing for ways to attain feedback that might enable better care.

The hospice had systems in place to identify and address inequalities in people’s experiences and outcomes. Leaders and staff recognised that people’s backgrounds, circumstances, protected characteristics and cultural beliefs could affect how they experienced care, and they took steps to respond to this in practice.

The hospice was particularly strong in how it listened to and engaged with disadvantaged and seldom‑heard groups. Leaders proactively identified communities who were less likely to access hospice services or who experienced poorer outcomes. Staff worked directly with these groups to understand their concerns, experiences and barriers to engagement, rather than relying solely on standard feedback methods.

We heard about excellent outreach work with people experiencing homelessness, Traveller communities, and people with a learning disability. This work was based on building trust and having open, respectful conversations in settings that felt safe and familiar.

For example, a group of people with learning disabilities, from a local complex supported living home, worked alongside their carers as gardeners at the hospice. This regular contact created opportunities for natural conversations about illness, dying and death. This work supported people to feel more confident discussing their wishes and reduced fear and misunderstanding about dying.

We also heard how hospice staff regularly attended local cancer support groups, particularly those attended by younger people and men, who are often less likely to engage with hospice services. Staff took an informal and visible approach, attending sessions in community venues rather than clinical settings. This helped to normalise conversations about hospice care, reduce stigma and build trust.

The hospice identified an area within the district where people were less likely to access hospice services compared with other areas. This area had higher levels of deprivation. Leaders considered this creatively and took action to reduce barriers to engagement. They worked with a local sports club and held drop‑in sessions to increase visibility within the community and make services more accessible. This helped to encourage engagement with the hospice and reach people who may not otherwise access support.

Learning from engagement with disadvantaged groups was shared across the organisation and used to improve practice. This approach helped reduce inequalities, improved trust in hospice services and ensured care was fair, inclusive and responsive to the needs of all people.

The hospice supported patients and those close to them to plan for the future in a timely, personalised and compassionate way. Staff helped patients to make informed choices about their care, treatment and support, taking account of their wishes, values and what mattered most to them.

Patients were encouraged to have ongoing conversations about future care, including prognosis, likely progression of their condition and available treatment options. Patients and families told us they felt able to ask questions and were given time to consider their options.

Care plans were updated as patients’ needs changed. Patients and families were involved in decisions whenever care plans were reviewed or altered. Records showed that discussions about treatment options, changes to care and future planning involved appropriately qualified medical and specialist staff and were clearly documented.

Patients and families were supported to understand the reasons for treatment changes and were reassured that care would continue to focus on comfort, dignity and symptom control. Chaplaincy and spiritual care support were available, and families were given opportunities to ask questions and seek reassurance.

Treatment escalation decisions and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) discussions were reviewed regularly, discussed with patients or their families, and documented clearly in individual records.