Cheadle Royal 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

Caring:

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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

Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

We always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

• Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We completed 4 Short Observation Framework for Inspection 2 (SOFI2) observations in the service, which are structured observations which capture people’s experience of care during the on site assessment. The staff interactions that we observed were positive and respectful.
• Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. We observed 3 ward rounds. Patients were asked for their views about their care, progress and how best the staff team could support them.
• Staff did not direct patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. Two patients told us they would have liked support from drug and alcohol services to support with their addiction whilst in hospital.
• Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Twelve patients talked positively about staff, including being listened to and that the service was more positive than previous services they have accessed. Two patients had not felt listened to in their ward rounds on Evergreen ward.
• Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Two patients told us that there can be a difference between night staff and day staff, with day staff understanding their needs more. Also patients told us that bank and agency staff did not understand their needs and how best to support them as well as permanent staff.
• Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.
• Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Conversations took place in locked offices where patients could not hear conversations taking place.
• Stakeholders observing care being delivered to patients told us that staff were caring and compassionate, and there was a warm and responsive culture.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

• The service did not always make adjustments for disabled patients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to the premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. The lift on Evergreen ward was not working during the assessment and this meant family visits could not take place on the ward. People with mobility needs who could not use the stairs would not be able to access the ward. A patient who was autistic on Evergreen ward, did not have any reasonable adjustments recorded in their care plan, and did not have any reference to autism or sensory assessments.
• Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and other relevant information. Welcome packs were available on each ward. Information was also displayed on notice boards in the wards.
• The information provided was not always in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Five patients whose first language was not English, did not fully understand their rights including access to an advocate and how to complain. A patient requested support from an interpreter that was not facilitated and another patient had to rely on translation via an app on a mobile phone.
• Staff did not make information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients. Welcome packs were only available in English. Staff told us that patient rights were available in other languages, however these could not be located.
• Patients told us they would like more access to interpreters.
• Patients did not always have a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Six patients told us that the food was good, however sometimes there was not enough food to satisfy their appetite. Six patients said the food was not good, including a lack of variety. Two patients said there was a lack of halal food available. One patient said food was not available to meet their sensory needs.
• Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. There was a chaplain based at the service one day a week, referrals could be made by staff and patients. The chaplain also visited the wards. A patient spoke positively about the chaplaincy provision at the service. However, stakeholders told us that staff’s knowledge of the chaplaincy service is variable and if this was increased, patients would experience more equity in having the opportunity to be referred to the service. Stakeholders told us there was not any provision in the service for patients of different faiths to access spiritual support including Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist faiths.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

• Patients were at the centre of the decision making of their care. Ward rounds we observed, showed patients actively involved in the meetings and being asked for their views, opinions and experiences.
• Six carers told us they were very impressed with the care delivered to their loved one. They felt involved with the service, with invites to the ward rounds and they received regular updates from staff.
• Stakeholders told us of the staff teams on Pankhurst ward and Willows ward making reasonable adjustments for patients.

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

• Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, and care planned for these accordingly. We saw safety plans in care records. VTE (venous thromboembolism) assessments were completed at admission in the records we reviewed, this was part of the previous warning notice and had been met at this assessment.
• Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients.
• Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. We observed a patient in distress, staff responded respectfully to them and responded to their requests.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

• Staff felt respected, supported and valued.
• Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.
• Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Reflective practice took place and debriefs following incidents.
• The provider recognised staff success within the service – for example, through staff awards. Staff celebration events took place with annual awards presented. Employee of the month was in use and patients gave feedback during community meetings.
• Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.