Fulwood Hall 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. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Patient feedback was highly positive. Patients we spoke with described staff as caring, supportive, and professional.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Patients were supported to have choice and control over their own care and treatment. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

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 scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Overall patient feedback was highly positive. Patients we spoke with described staff as caring, supportive, and professional. One patient said, “staff at all levels went above and beyond” to manage their condition and “they didn’t give up on options to help me”. Staff had explored other options and had sought specialist advice to ensure safe and effective care. Patients reported feeling reassured and confident in the care provided.

Communication was highlighted as a particular strength, with patients stating that procedures and treatment plans were explained clearly and thoroughly. Many felt treated with dignity and respect, regardless of age or background, and appreciated the responsive approach when issues arose, such as quickly rearranging missed appointments.

Timeliness and efficiency were also positively noted, with patients reporting short waiting times and smooth outpatient experiences, particularly within ophthalmology services. Observations of care, including cataract procedures, further reinforced perceptions of high-quality clinical practice.

The only area for improvement identified was parking availability, which some patients found challenging.

Staff advised patients if there were any delays to appointments. They apologised and gave regular updates about when they would be seen. Patients told us staff offered refreshments if they were waiting for a long period.

Privacy and dignity were maintained through discreet assessments, privacy screens within clinic rooms, appropriate sharing of information and staff advocating for their wishes throughout their care. Staff also used quiet rooms and private spaces for sensitive discussions or telephone calls.

Patient feedback from Friends and Family Tests (FFT) for the outpatient department was very positive. Data from April 2025 to March 2026 showed that out of 1140 responses, 96% rated their care as ‘very good’, the highest possible rating.

Patient feedback had led to improvements to the clinical environment for urine flow tests. This included the introduction of a private, lockable room to enhance patients’ privacy and dignity during the procedure. Patient feedback following the changes was consistently positive. Patients said staff were professional, communicated clearly, and were sensitive to their anxiety. Patients also reported feeling reassured, respected, and well supported throughout their care.

Staff spoke positively about working for the organisation and said they enjoyed caring for patients and being able to go the extra mile to support them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Individual identities and backgrounds were discussed during appointments and reflected in care plans. Staff gave examples of when they had tailored support for patients to accommodate cultural and religious preference.

Patients were provided with information on treatments, local services, patient rights and how to complain. The information provided was accessible and information leaflets could be requested in different languages. Staff and patients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

All areas of the department were accessible by wheelchair. Waiting areas were equipped with fresh drinking water, tea, coffee and snacks for patients and visitors. Due to the short nature of stay in the outpatient department, food was not provided but staff told us food could be provided, should there be any appointment delays.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients told us they were supported to have choice and control over their own care and treatment. Staff supported patients to help them understand their rights by using different ways to communicate. For example, we observed staff using a cataract model to help the patient visualise and understand the procedure and presented information in a way that was easy to understand.

Patients could choose their appointment times, formats (e.g. face-to-face or telephone), and could request changes if needed.

Staff provided examples of how they supported patients understanding through their outpatient journey. They described taking time to explain procedures and treatments, particularly for anxious patients. One nurse gave an example of supporting a nervous patient attending for suture removal by carefully explaining each stage of the procedure, ensuring the patient felt reassured and comfortable throughout.

Staff told us they regularly reinforced information provided by consultants, explaining next steps, pre-operative processes and follow-up arrangements to ensure patients understood their care and treatment plans. They said patients often commented positively about having a nurse present during consultations, particularly during gynaecology appointments, as it provided reassurance and additional support.

Consent was revisited regularly, and staff respected people’s right to pause or withdraw from treatment. Information about rights and options was clearly communicated and reinforced throughout the care process.

Patients had access to their friends and family while they are using a service. Staff gave an example of involving family members in pre-operative planning when requested.

Staff shared an example of how they had supported a patient who was anxious during a follow-up appointment. The patient had described staff as being reassuring, calm, patient-centred and informative throughout their appointment. The patient expressed gratitude for the kindness, gentleness, and time taken by staff, and requested continuity of care due to their positive experience.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff told us they had processes in place to identify and respond to patients' immediate needs during outpatient appointments. Patients attending clinics checked in at reception and were supported throughout their appointment. Staff explained that either a registered nurse or healthcare assistant routinely accompanied consultants during clinics, providing support to patients and acting as a chaperone where required.

Healthcare assistants undertook baseline assessments, including recording height and weight measurements and supporting patients to complete medical questionnaires, enabling any concerns to be identified promptly. Staff escorted patients to and from clinic rooms and recorded information from consultations on the electronic patient record system, including treatments discussed, injections administered and follow-up arrangements, ensuring any immediate needs were responded to appropriately and communicated effectively.

Staff described how they responded to patients who contacted the department with concerns following surgery. They routinely assessed pain levels using pain scores and asked about symptoms such as swelling, mobility and recovery progress. Where concerns were identified, patients could be brought back for review rather than waiting to see their GP.

Staff explained that any nurse working within the treatment room could respond to patient concerns received by telephone. Resident doctors were available to provide advice and support when necessary and could also contact on-call medical staff for additional clinical input.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The service used a safer staffing tool within the outpatient department to support safe working and manageable workloads. Staff told us they were able to take regular breaks with the provision of rest areas and a contemplation room.

Data from the most recent staff survey (2025) showed that the outpatient department scored highly for the following metrics: ‘I feel positive about myself at work’ (95%) and ‘the amount of stress in my job is manageable’ (95%). The scores were better than the benchmark average for the provider’s other hospitals. Lowest scores included ‘experience vs expectation’ (47%) and psychological safety (58%). Leaders told us that other themes for improvement included workload pressures at peak times, capacity management, communication about change and development opportunities.

Actions were taken in response to staff feedback including a review of clinic templates, improved escalation routes and visibility of leaders. Feedback from staff surveys was shared through team meetings, and daily huddles to provide regular opportunities for discussion and communication.

The service followed a lone working policy to support staff safety. It also promoted a safe working environment through staff training such sexual harassment awareness training. Compliance for outpatient staff was 100%.

Patients were supported by staff who felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. We observed monthly newsletters sharing positive news across different departments, including recognition of outpatient staff for working extra shifts to support the team.

The service reinforced a culture of appreciation through a reward system that recognised staff who went above and beyond. Staff had regular opportunities to nominate colleagues for exceeding expectations. This was done on a monthly basis to recognise staff who had shown exceptional care, commitment, or contribution. We saw examples of staff from the outpatient department who were recognised for their welcoming, caring and supportive nature.

Staff also had regular opportunities to provide feedback on operational challenges to help identify risks and be involved in service improvement and development.

The service took an inclusive approach to support staff engagement. For example, there was a pre‑meeting consultation process that allowed all staff to contribute via email or written submissions. This meant that staff who were unable to attend meetings, or who preferred not to speak in group settings, could still share views, raise concerns, and suggest improvements.

The service provided a range of wellbeing and mental health support initiatives. These included access to confidential advice and counselling services, flexible leave options to support work–life balance, and a variety of physical and mental wellbeing activities.

The physiotherapy team had provided staff wellbeing sessions and activities, supported by senior leaders, to encourage rest and stress reduction during breaks.

Staff could access a range of on-site mental health and wellbeing support, including access to trained mental health first aiders, leadership drop-in sessions, and occupational health services. Additional initiatives such as career development opportunities, recognition schemes, and employee benefits contributed to staff wellbeing, engagement, and retention.

Staff could access several staff wellbeing events which were promoted through posters outlining a calendar of events. Examples of monthly events included religious celebrations, self-care and mental health awareness.

The physiotherapy manager spoke positively about team members who had undertaken additional responsibilities, including advanced practitioner roles, consultant follow-up clinics and specialist physiotherapy interests. Staff told us they valued the career development opportunities available, and the support provided by the organisation to undertake funded training and progression opportunities.