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 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.

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.

We observed staff treating patients with dignity and respect. We observed anxious patients treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We saw positive interactions between patients and staff.

Patients we spoke with described positive experiences throughout their care and treatment. They praised staff for high standards of compassion and dignity shown.

Privacy screens and curtains were available to help ensure patient privacy and dignity was maintained when required. We observed these being used.

We observed a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. Staff collaborated with other colleagues to provide support for people.

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.

Patients told us staff treated them as individuals. Staff took time to listen to patients and tailored care to the individual; considering cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff asked patients if they had any communication needs in line with the accessible information standard. There were posters available that signposted patients to ask for help if they needed information in large text, sign language, easy read text or braille. Staff had access to communication aids and translation services.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Staff spoke with patients in a way they could understand and had a good understanding of their individual needs and preferences.

People were supported to have choice and control in their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment, and wellbeing. The service offered patients the choice to have chemotherapy treatment in their own home following an initial consultation and review of potential risks. We were told patients were able to change the location of treatment at anytime during the process.

Patients were given information leaflets regarding their treatment to support them in making informed decisions.

Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences.

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.

Patients told us staff carried out regular observations during their treatment. They told us staff were calm and reassuring and answered any questions they had about their treatment. They told us that any concerns or anxieties were listened to and supported by staff.

Staff provided patients and those close to them with help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. They were empathetic and considerate of the stress of a hospital environment.

Patients felt that staff would respond to their needs quickly and efficiently, especially if they were in pain.

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 had access to resources and facilities to support safe working. This included being able to take breaks, access to designated rest areas and the availability of food and drinks.

Staff told us they felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. They told us managers were approachable, supportive and were visible and regularly visit clinical areas; throughout the inspection we observed managers visiting clinical areas and checking in with staff throughout the day.

The service had initiatives to support staff workloads, including flexible shifts. Staff told us that they felt their workload was manageable and this had positively impacted on their wellbeing at work.