Springfield 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 patients were treated with kindness, empathy, and compassion. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take patient’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.

We observed staff treating patients with dignity and respect. We observed 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.

Patient feedback and survey results showed high levels of satisfaction with how staff treated them, with people confirming they were treated with dignity and had sufficient privacy during their care.

We observed a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues.

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.

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. 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.

We reviewed 11 care records and observed patient needs and preferences were recorded.

Staff understood the need to make reasonable adjustments where identified, such as allowing flexibility in people’s appointment times and allowing people to be accompanied by a relative or carer during their treatment.

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

Patients we spoke with said staff took into consideration their individual choices and wishes. They told us they were given clear information about their treatment and were supported to understand what to expect, including potential risks, side effects and future options.

Patients told us staff gave them time to ask questions and reflect on information.

Staff worked with patients to fit treatment around their lives wherever possible. This included adjusting appointment times to accommodate work and other commitments.

The service provided a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and dietary intolerances.

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 conducted 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 any concerns or anxieties were listened to and supported by staff.

The service positioned emergency call bells close to each bed to ensure staff could call for additional and expert help quickly.

Relatives were able to stay with patients during treatment in the oncology department. There were facilities for hot and cold drinks and a comfortable area for visitors to sit. Staff were available to respond to queries from relatives and provide support as needed.

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. The service provided adaptions to staff uniforms enabling staff to dress in accordance with their cultural practices.

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

Staff could access corporate services that included an employee assistance programme and occupational therapy.

Leaders had facilitated the training of additional mental health first aiders, bringing the total to 12. Staff told us they could access support from this team or refer colleagues who may benefit from additional support.

We saw examples of events and initiatives designed to improve staff wellbeing and these included a summer barbeque, a dedicated wellbeing room and mental wellbeing sessions.

Leaders considered staff feedback and the working environment when developing improvement projects. For example, a height-adjustable sink had been installed within the endoscopy department to improve ergonomics and support staff wellbeing and safety in the workplace.