Cleveland Clinic London 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

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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.

During our assessment of the service, patients told us staff had been kind, compassionate and they had received care in a dignified manner. One patient told us they had been cared for ‘incredibly well’. They felt the manner in which they were communicated with and treated had a positive impact and made them feel genuinely cared for. Another patient told us staff were ‘good, nice and kind’ and they had no complaints.

Throughout the assessment we observed staff treating patients with kindness, they were empathetic and caring. Staff took time speaking with patients and explaining procedures and treatment clearly. Patients told us they felt reassured and listened to, which fostered the sense of trust and safety. The provider had a spiritual care service that supported patients, families, and staff regardless of faith Patients felt that their privacy and confidentiality were upheld, and they could rely on staff to respond promptly to their needs, especially in times of pain, discomfort, or distress. We observed staff working well together with mutual respect reinforcing staff commitment to a culture of kindness.

Staff treated patients as individuals tailoring the care and treatment to meet patients’ unique needs and preferences. We saw staff demonstrate this by speaking with the patients while they administered care and explaining the treatments they were receiving, making patients feel more involved in their care. Patients told us they felt staff were attentive to their needs and staff were accommodating, however, one patient mentioned response times could be improved.

Staff effectively communicated with patients. Doctors and nurses made a concerted effort to explain treatment plans and involve patients in decision-making ensuring they understood their treatment options and the intended outcomes.

The provider had recently undertaken the annual patient led assessment for the care environment audit (PLACE). Inpatient areas scored well in most categories however, the environment was 50% compliant as a dementia friendly space. This meant patients living with dementia, may not have their individual needs met. Patients were invited to give feedback as part of the PLACE audit. Feedback on the multi-faith room highlighted there were not designated areas for men and women to sit separately, which is part of different faiths. Patients were pleased that the audit was being undertaken as it showed that the provider genuinely cared about individual needs. At the time of our assessment, the PLACE audit had recently been published and discussions were starting to take place to identify the actions required to improve these areas. Patient partners were patients and family members who had lived experienced of the service. They were involved in these discussions to provide the patient voice in these improvements.

The service supported patient independence, choice, and control over their own care and treatment. Patients told us they felt empowered to make decisions about their care, with staff consistently involving them in discussions and answering any questions they had. One patient told us they did not want to follow the recommendation of a diabetic nurse and staff accepted the patient’s decision. This meant the patient was able to make a decision that felt right for them.

Staff provided an example when they helped a patient to return home rather than continue treatment in the service. Staff coordinated care with their local services ensuring the patient was discharged to a place of their choosing. Throughout these discussions staff kept the patient and relatives updated so that they were aware of the plans for their discharge.

Staff were attentive and responsive to patients' immediate needs, contributing to a positive experience of care. Patients consistently reported that staff responded quickly when assistance was needed, often arriving within approximately 30 seconds of a call button request. This prompt response time was viewed positively by patients, as it ensured any immediate needs, discomfort, or questions were addressed swiftly, minimising potential distress.

The service used pain score tools to measure patients pain levels and treat the pain accordingly. The pain audit showed the service scored 100% in all areas they were assessed on. Staff had access to pain scales in a number of foreign languages to assist with individual care.

The service could access the critical care outreach team if they had concerns about a deteriorating patient. An online consultation alerted the team who would respond to the ward, ensuring the patient received appropriate care and treatment in a timely manner.

All staff had access to a caregiver’s lounge with a lounge situated on each floor. This was a comfortable area for staff to relax. Several online applications had been launched for staff to facilitate their access to an employee assistance programme which included financial assistance and counselling. There were 15 trained mental health first aiders who staff could contact if they felt they needed support.

There were a range of staff networks available for staff to join which encouraged staff to come together and forge working relationships outside of their immediate area. Information on these could be found on the internal intranet.

Freedom to speak up guardians were available; staff could contact these individuals to raise concerns confidentially. This meant staff could raise issues even if they felt uncomfortable speaking with managers and senior leaders.

Meeting minutes for the ward demonstrated staff discussed team social events, the aim of these was to promote team working and reinforce a positive work environment.

Patients told us they perceived staff were content and happy in their work and staff worked well together.