The Droitwich Spa 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 key question considers whether the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At the previous assessment, this key question was rated Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. This was the first assessment for this service under the Single Assessment Framework.

Good means people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and were involved as partners in their care.

People told us they were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We observed staff interacting with people in a respectful and considerate way and taking steps to protect privacy and dignity throughout their care. The environment supported privacy and dignity, with individual patient rooms available.

People provided positive feedback about their experience of care, including through the Friends and Family Test. People told us they felt respected, listened to and well supported during their time at the service.

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 told us staff treated them exceptionally well and with kindness. They told us staff were consistently friendly and caring and gave very positive feedback about the ways staff showed them respect and maintained their dignity.

Staff we spoke with were focused on the patient experience and were caring and compassionate. They described how they supported people respectfully and consistently maintained privacy and dignity during care.

Staff consistently anticipated people’s emotional and physical needs and responded proactively in ways that went beyond routine care, ensuring people felt reassured, respected and fully supported at every stage of their treatment.

We observed staff treating people with kindness, compassion and dignity and responding thoughtfully to people’s emotional and physical needs throughout their care. During our observations, a patient told staff they were feeling nervous and cold. Staff responded calmly and kindly, taking time to explain each step of the process, speaking reassuringly and ensuring the patient did not feel rushed. Staff took additional steps to support comfort, including providing an extra sheet, and continued to check on the patient’s well-being. We saw patients supported in a similar, attentive way along the care pathway, including in the anaesthetic room and recovery bay, where staff communicated clearly, anticipated needs and provided reassurance to help people feel comfortable and well supported.

They told us that patients’ needs and preferences were assessed before admission through the pre‑operative assessment process. We saw that staff were discreet and highly responsive when caring for patients. Staff took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

Staff had access to services to seek further advice where required. The service was part of a wider provider group, and staff told us learning was shared across the group to support the care of patients with specific needs, including people living with dementia.

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.

We saw that the service treated people as individuals and made sure care met their personal needs and preferences. Staff told us they took time to understand what mattered to people, including their concerns, expectations and preferred communication style. Patients we spoke with said staff explained care and treatment in ways they could understand.

The patients’ care records we looked at showed that individual needs and preferences were assessed during the pre‑operative assessment. Individual risk assessments and care plans were in place to support people’s needs.

Staff made sure patients living with dementia or with a learning disability received care that met their needs. Staff used hospital passports and dementia‑friendly information to support communication and reduce anxiety. Relatives or carers were able to stay with patients and were offered a room as required.

Staff had access to interpreting services and communication aids, including hearing loops, and asked patients about their communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Managers ensured access to interpreters or signers when required.

The entrance to the hospital was located on the ground floor with wheelchair access and designated blue badge parking spaces. The service made reasonable adjustments to support people’s access to the premises and their care.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs were understood and met. Patients had a choice of food to meet religious, cultural and dietary requirements, including allergies and intolerances.

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.

Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. Staff understood the emotional and social impact a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing. They reviewed consent with patients prior to surgery to ensure they understood the benefits and risks of the procedure and were still happy to consent.

The service used ‘you said, we did’ feedback to better involve patients in service improvements. For example, staff received feedback on the patient menu and made changes to food choices from feedback. This increased patient engagement and feedback.

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.

Staff monitored patients across theatres and recovery and acted promptly when people expressed anxiety or physical discomfort. Staff adjusted care to provide reassurance and maintain people’s safety.

Patients told us that staff carried out regular observations during their treatment and provided timely pain relief. Patients said staff were calm and reassuring and answered questions about their treatment. They told us staff listened to and supported them with concerns or anxieties.

Staff told us patients’ risk assessments and care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. They said identified risks were escalated for medical review when required. Staff understood the emotional and social impact a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them.

Staff monitored patients following surgery and before discharge to make sure they were suitable to leave the hospital and had appropriate support in place. We observed staff regularly engaging with and monitoring patients during and after surgery.

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 we spoke with across theatres and the ward felt respected, supported and valued. Staff said they worked well together and described teams as stable and supportive. Staff described leadership behaviours as being in line with the provider’s values and expectations.

Leaders promoted wellbeing initiatives and staff told us they were able to access appropriate support when needed. Managers used sickness and absence management processes and said they took a supportive approach when staff were unwell. Staff gave examples of being supported by leaders during periods of sickness or personal difficulty.

The service used flexible staffing arrangements, including adjusting shifts and using bank staff, to manage workload pressures. Staff told us their workload was manageable and that this supported their wellbeing at work. Staff described supporting one another during busy periods and stepping in to help colleagues when pressures increased. Staff said they felt proud to work at the service and described the culture as inclusive and collaborative.

The service supported staff wellbeing in line with the Workforce Wellbeing and Enablement Quality Statement. The hospital had a Mental Health First Aider in place who provided regular wellbeing support and shared mental health awareness updates with staff. These included communications linked to national campaigns such as World Suicide Prevention Day, mental health support during the Christmas period and Time to Talk initiatives. This demonstrated that staff had access to ongoing wellbeing support and information, contributing to a culture where staff wellbeing was recognised and promoted and which supported the delivery of person‑centred care.