St Joseph's Hospice Association

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.

St Joseph’s Hospice provided personalised, patient-centred care, responding to individual needs and preferences. Staff were trained to support specific requirements, meals were bespoke, and patients’ comfort and wellbeing were prioritised. Communication with families was effective, complaints were well-managed, and admissions were carefully assessed and coordinated. The hospice also supported social, emotional, and spiritual needs and demonstrated commitment to future community-focused developments.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. 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 took account of each patient’s individual needs, and care plans were person-centred.

Staff monitored and reviewed patients’ changing needs through regular comfort rounds, increasing their frequency as required to respond to individual circumstances.

All patients had a “All About Me” booklet available to all staff, outlining their specific needs and preferences. Staff had received training to support patients with requirements, such as dementia awareness.

Patient care was personalised; for example, one patient who was blind in one eye was moved to a room with a better view from the window.

Unlike most hospices, patients generally remained at St Joseph’s until death rather than being discharged home once stabilised. This was patient-led choice.

Meal plans were bespoke and developed with the involvement of patients and their families. The choice of meals was varied and adapted to each person’s individual needs. We observed a wide selection of options and were advised that the catering manager spoke with each patient to ensure their likes and dislikes were considered. One patient highly praised the kitchen, noting its flexibility and stating that staff were happy to prepare snacks when requested. A relative also commended the healthcare assistants for their efforts in encouraging nutrition and hydration.

We scored the service as 3. 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 planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people. Senior managers showed us plans for future developments that showed an awareness of the needs of the local population.

They planned future services that provided space for people in the community to access social activities and therapies to address the needs of people with life-limiting illnesses, socially isolated or were dealing with addiction while dying.

Staff had access to translation services for patients’ who did not speak English, though all patients did speak English at the time of our assessment.

We observed translation that had been in use during a patient admission the day before our arrival on site, when staff placed welcome signs up for the patient in their room, in their first language.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was a combination of onsite resources, personalised support, and digital accessibility demonstrating the hospice’s commitment to informing and supporting patients and their families throughout their journey.

During our onsite assessment, we observed that a wide range of information leaflets and flyers were readily available to patients and their families, ensuring access to essential guidance and resources.

The family support worker engaged with families, providing advice and support on important matters such as Lasting Power of Attorney and other practical considerations.

In addition, the service maintained a comprehensive website, offering patients and their families detailed information about staying at the hospice, what makes St Joseph’s Hospice unique, accommodation options, and the quality of care provided.

We scored the service as 3. 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 Complaints Policy (Version 4, last reviewed May 2025) was detailed and considered appropriate. Regular policy reviews were evident. Three complaints were reviewed in full, investigations were completed, and appropriate responses were provided to the complainants.

At the time of reporting, there were no open complaints, with an average of two to three complaints occurring each year. We reviewed 3 closed complaints and saw the issues had been investigated and resolved appropriately. There were no themes or trends identified.

Patients and carers were informed about how to raise complaints through leaflets placed around the hospice, the hospice website, and verbal communication. This information was provided to families on the day of admission. The family support worker offered real-time guidance on the complaints process.

Staff were trained to handle complaints through the hospice complaints policy and mandatory training. HCAs reported complaints to a registered nurse, who attempted to de-escalate the situation and liaised with the family appropriately.

All complaints were logged and tracked using the electronic system to identify themes or patterns. For example, two complaints were recorded during the year under review. One complaint, regarding a staff members conduct, this was investigated and upheld. A formal apology was sent to the family, a written warning was issued to the staff member, and lessons were learned to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Learning from complaints was shared across the organisation. A zero-tolerance policy regarding inappropriate behaviour was reinforced, and staff were supported in managing difficult interactions with families. The clinical director provided examples of how family behaviours had been addressed.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Service performance was closely monitored in accordance with the hospice’s admissions policy. Each referral was carefully assessed to determine whether the hospice was able to meet the patient’s individual needs.

In some cases, assessments concluded that patients’ needs could be more appropriately met within the community or in a nursing home environment. When beds were available, the admission process was seamless and followed established internal procedures.

The hospice worked collaboratively with a neighbouring hospice, maintaining open and transparent communication regarding bed capacity and transfer arrangements. Transfers took place in both directions, stable or acute patients were admitted to St Joseph’s, while those requiring additional clinical interventions were transferred to the neighbouring hospice.

Although there was no formal written policy for patient prioritisation, all referrals were reviewed by either the director of clinical services, the inpatient unit manager, or one of the ward sisters. Where necessary, additional information was sought from the referring clinicians, and advice was obtained from the palliative medicine consultant or attending doctor to determine admission priorities.

If two patients were referred simultaneously, one from the community and one from hospital, the hospice prioritised the community patient, as the hospital patient was already in a place of safety and receiving care. If two community referrals were received and only one bed was available, the patient with the highest clinical need was admitted.

All referrals were made with the patient’s consent or, if the patient lacked capacity, under a formal Best Interest Decision.

The pre-admission checklist included the following: full referral details, communication needs, mental health needs, patient safety considerations, nutritional and hydration requirements, continence management, medication, and any additional identified needs.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The hospice maintained a strong focus on ensuring that patients did not remain in the service longer than clinically necessary. In cases where end of life care within the hospice was not appropriate, the team worked closely with CHC representatives and social workers to arrange safe and suitable discharges to alternative care settings.

Historically, the hospice had supported respite admissions and longer-term patients; however, this practice was discontinued to focus resources on those requiring dedicated end of life care.

Waiting times were actively monitored and managed through ongoing liaison with CHC. The hospice regularly communicated the service bed availability and maintained a close working relationship with CHC coordinators. In most cases, the waiting period for admission was only a few days. When delays occurred, these were generally due to logistical issues such as patient transport, oxygen provision, or medication requirements.

Bed occupancy was monitored through the clinical dashboard, which was reviewed quarterly by the clinical governance sub-committee. It was also monitored via the organisational dashboard, which was reviewed quarterly at the full trustee meeting.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The Family Support Worker (FSW) completed the patient’s social and spiritual requests and, where appropriate, assisted with funeral planning by liaising with the patient’s preferred funeral directors.

The FSW also checked for any practical issues, concerns, or worries related to benefits, legal matters, or housing. Guidance and information were provided, and, where necessary, patients and families were signposted or referred to the relevant organisations or authorities.