Rivers 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 people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.
 

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. 

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 were treated with compassion and kindness, and their privacy and dignity was respected. Their individual needs were considered and respected. During our inspection, patients praised staff for a welcoming environment. Dressing gowns were made available to patients for the duration of their appointment if they chose to wear one.  

Chaperones were provided when required for diagnostic imaging investigations, with patient relatives or reception staff undertaking this role. Chaperones were positioned behind the screen to protect them from unnecessary radiation exposure.  

Discreet and responsive care was provided to patients. Patients told us time was taken by staff to interact with them and those close to them in a respectful and considerate manner.  

Patients were shown to changing cubicles. Each of the four cubicles had magnetic fobs that attached to the cubicle wall. These magnets were given to patients on arrival and attached by them to their allocated cubicle, making it visible to others that the cubicle was occupied for the duration of the appointment.  

There was a current and comprehensive patient confidentiality policy. Staff told us they sought confidentiality by not having conversations in open spaces.

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.

Emotional support was provided to patients, families and carers to minimise distress. Personal, cultural and religious needs were understood. Chaperones were positioned behind the screen to protect them from radiation exposure. 

The service has well-maintained, safe gardens surrounding the premises and these can be accessed by patients.  

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 could book appointments by phone and costs of services were discussed. Patients told us the process of what would happen and why was explained very clearly.   

The emotional and social impact of patients’ care, treatment or condition was understood by staff. Patients told us they had opportunities to provide feedback on their care. 

Staff ensured that patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment.  

Feedback questionnaires were available. The most recent results were overwhelmingly positive, although it was unclear which responses related specifically to diagnostic imaging.  

When investigations were completed, patients were shown back to the changing rooms to get dressed and were informed of what to expect next, such as the need to book a further appointment with reception if required.  

During our inspection, patients reported they felt the service provider had been very supportive and communicated clearly with them.  

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.

The service rarely needed emergency services. However, staff told us there was 1 incident within the last year, where a patient had an allergic reaction to contrast material consumed for a CT scan. Staff stayed with the patient until an ambulance arrived and took the patient to Accident and Emergency at the nearest hospital. The service then called a few days later to check on the patient.  

The emotional and social impact of care, treatment or condition on patients and those close to them was understood by staff. 

Support was provided to patients experiencing stress during appointments, and strategies were offered to assist with mental health concerns.  

Patients’ pain during diagnostic imaging procedures was responded to by staff. Repositioning advice was offered to alleviate discomfort during investigations. 

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 told us they felt supported by leaders and managers were approachable and the team felt like a family. 

The service provided staff with information about flexible working arrangements. Staff told us they were aware of the wellbeing programme, which offered support such as counselling, and felt confident about how to access these services should they need them. They were also able to clearly explain where to seek wellbeing support. Leaders advised that where workplace adjustments were required, an appropriate business case would be developed and considered. 

Training and learning were shared across the team.  

The department had windows that provided natural light. Staff reported taking regular breaks throughout the day. The desks and chairs were in good condition.  

Staff spoke highly of the department lead, who was new in post. They described the department lead as efficient and competent and expressed confidence that concerns were acted upon appropriately.