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

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 changed to good.

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

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.

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 this quality statement 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 people with kindness and respect and helping them feel comfortable during their visit. Staff showed patience and compassion when supporting elderly patients in the waiting area.

Family members told us staff were respectful and considerate in their interactions. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs and how these should be reflected in their care.

Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns about patient care if needed. They said they felt confident to speak up, although they had not witnessed any situations that caused concern.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Staff made sure care, support and treatment reflected people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, culture and backgrounds when planning and delivering care.

Training supported this approach. Staff had completed Oliver McGowan and dementia champion training, which helped them adapt communication, reduce anxiety and support people with sensory needs or those who relied on routines.

Wheelchairs were available at the hospital entrance to support people with limited mobility. Staff worked to identify and record additional needs before appointments using patient questionnaires, which helped them prepare and make appropriate adjustments in advance. However, where this was not possible, staff told us they were flexible and adapted care to meet people’s needs once they arrived.

When clinics were running late, staff kept people informed and offered refreshments. This showed consideration for people’s comfort and helped improve their experience while waiting.

We scored this quality statement 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 promoted people’s independence and supported them to have choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. Clinics ran at different times throughout the week, including morning and evening appointments, which gave people greater flexibility and control over when they attended.

Staff in the physiotherapy department told us about rehabilitation classes that supported people to manage their health independently where possible. This helped people build confidence and take an active role in their recovery.

The service ensured chaperones were available for patients when required. This supported people to feel safe and respected when making decisions about their care.

We scored this quality statement 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 were attentive to people’s wellbeing while waiting for appointments. Reception staff escalated concerns promptly to clinical staff if a patient appeared distressed in the waiting area, which showed a caring and responsive approach.

Staff told us about a patient who became unwell whilst in the waiting area. They escalated this quickly to the resident medical doctor, who assessed the patient and arranged onward urgent and emergency care. Staff followed up with the patient the next day to check on their wellbeing and offer further support.

When the patient’s appointment was rebooked, staff took steps to reassure them and help them feel at ease. This demonstrated effective escalation, team working and a compassionate response to a change in the patient’s condition.

We scored this quality statement 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 took proactive steps to support staff wellbeing. Leaders arranged regular social events for staff, which were well attended, and recognised staff commitment through a recognition board and long‑service awards. The service also provided access to a psychologist to support staff with their emotional wellbeing when needed.

Staff told us they supported one another during busy periods, particularly when colleagues were returning from sickness leave or required flexible working arrangements.

Staff told us they felt valued within their teams and were supported to develop in their roles where there was a service need. However, some staff told us that short‑notice clinic changes could be frustrating and sometimes disrupted planned working patterns. Despite this, staff continued to work together to support each other and maintain patient care.