Oaklands 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

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

This was the first assessment of this assessment service group. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and 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 and staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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.

Patients’ confidentiality, privacy and dignity were protected throughout the patient pathway. However, we observed there was no storage for clothing and valuables and patients were advised to leave their belongings with relatives or accompanying persons during their procedure.

Patient experience was monitored through survey feedback. We reviewed results over a two-month period and found that all responses were positive, indicating a consistently good patient experience.

Staff in the endoscopy department spoke with compassion and pride about the care they delivered. They described treating patients with kindness, compassion and dignity in their daily interactions. We saw 2 staff who held dignity champion commitment certificates in endoscopy. A dignity champion is someone committed to promoting and upholding dignity and respect in care services, ensuring compassionate, person-centred care for all.

During the assessment, we observed communication between nursing staff and patients. Interactions were calm, positive and professional, with staff consistently demonstrating respect. We also spoke with patients who told us staff were friendly and caring and gave us positive feedback about ways in which staff showed them respect and ensured that their dignity was maintained.

Staff also demonstrated a respectful approach to partnership working. They spoke positively about working collaboratively with other organisations and agencies, showing regard for the contributions of external care providers.

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.

The service made adjustments to ensure people could access the premises and to meet their specific communication needs. In endoscopy, staff understood the need to make reasonable adjustments where identified, such as allowing flexibility in people’s appointment times, offering people a visit prior to their appointment or allowing them to be accompanied by a relative or carer during their treatment. Staff knew how to access interpreter support when this was needed.

In line with JAG accreditation guidance, there were a range of communication methods and materials to inform patients about what they should expect from the service.

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.

The service had an effective chaperone policy, which appropriately considered the needs of people with various cultural and religious values, and patients lacking capacity.

Patients we spoke with said staff took into consideration their individual choices and wishes. They told us they were kept informed about their care and given information to help them understand the decisions they needed to make. Patients received timely, clear and appropriate information. This included a realistic explanation of the procedure and the level of discomfort that may be experienced, supporting informed consent and patient understanding.

Staff provided patients with both verbal information and leaflets to support their recovery following endoscopic procedures. The information was tailored to the specific procedure undertaken and included guidance on post-procedure care, expected symptoms, pain management, and actions patients could take to support their recovery. Information was clear, accessible and enabled patients to understand when to seek further advice or medical attention.

The service was accessible for people with additional mobility needs such as wheelchair users, with ramps and lifts as appropriate. A hoist was available on site to support patient transfers if this was needed.

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.

People told us that staff carried out appropriate assessments and monitoring of their immediate needs such as their pain levels. These took place both during and following the endoscopy procedure and before discharge, to ensure patients were comfortable and safe to go home.

Staff maintained regular communication with patients throughout endoscopy procedures to assess comfort and wellbeing. We saw that staff checked for signs of discomfort and responded appropriately to patient needs.

We saw comfort score audits were carried out every 6 months to review patient experience and ensure standards of care were maintained and improved within the endoscopy service. It was found that 90% of sampled patients had minimal pain following their colonoscopy and 10% scored a pain score of lower than 2.

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.

Staff within the endoscopy service told us they felt valued and supported by their colleagues and at an organisational level. Some staff were trained as mental health first aiders. Staff told us they could access support from this team or refer colleagues who may benefit from additional support. The service also promoted staff wellbeing through trained wellbeing champions and dedicated wellbeing initiatives which could be accessed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

There were established systems in place to engage with staff. The endoscopy service held regular staff forums and the service also engaged with staff in corporate staff surveys undertaken by the provider, with a ‘One Employee, One Voice’ survey. Results for October 2025 were positive, with scores of 80% for staff recommending the company as a great place to work; 81% feeling positive about themselves at work; and 90% seeing patient safety as a priority in the organisation

Leaders in the endoscopy service recognised the importance of staff wellbeing. Staff told us that leaders were approachable and supportive. Senior staff had protected time to focus on their own wellbeing, which demonstrated a commitment to promoting a healthy work-life balance.

The service supported staff development and engagement through a range of initiatives. These included access to external speakers, additional training opportunities, staff engagement events, and team activities such as charity events.

The organisation supported inclusive practice. For example, staff had access to support through an online learning academy, including opportunities for neurodivergent staff to gain formal qualifications. Flexible working arrangements were supported where possible to meet individual staff needs. Lone working was not a risk in the service as other staff were always present and accessible in endoscopy.