Kneesworth House

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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

The service ensured that patients using the service were supported by staff in an appropriate and supportive manner, treated them with kindness and understood their individual needs.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were friendly, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We observed positive and kind interactions between staff on our visit.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff provided one-to-one sessions with patients to go through their risk assessments, care plan and options for therapeutic activities. Staff supported patients to engage in meaningful activities.

Patients on Ermine and Clopton ward said staff treated them well, were kind and supportive and available when they needed support, however patients on Orwell ward gave mixed feedback, some patients said that staff were rude and too busy to help. Carers we spoke with said staff were welcoming, helpful and supportive.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff supported patients to maintain and develop their social skills and meet their needs through various activities and tools.

Staff followed the hospital policy to keep patient’s information confidential. Information held on electronic systems was protected. Paper records were held in the nursing station which was kept locked.

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.

The service met the needs of patients who used the service, including those with protected characteristics. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support.

The provider displayed information about the service, including advocacy, clearly on noticeboards on all the wards.

The service had access to translators and signers for any patients whose first language was not English. They worked with individual patients to provide accessible information.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. There were a range of varied food options available to cater to all needs, however patients across the 3 wards told us they did not enjoy the food, patients said the menu was very potato heavy and the food was not always hot. Leaders told us that they were looking at ways to respond to patients’ feedback about the food. Patient feedback about food was discussed in the July 2025 clinical governance meeting and an action plan was documented.

Patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. The hospital facilitated visits from Christian and Muslim religious leaders. Patients could access spiritual support for other faiths when required.

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 supported patients to understand and be involved in their own care and treatment. Most of the patients we spoke to told us that they were involved in creating their care plans with staff and that they were reviewed regularly.

Staff within the service had a good understanding of patient’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside the hospital. Occupational therapists and activity co-ordinators supported patients to pursue their interests and hobbies.

Patients could make their own hot drinks and snacks without relying on staff. Patients always had access to drinks. Patients kept their own food in a fridge.

Patients had access to their own mobile phones where the risk had been assessed as low and all wards had a telephone in a quiet, private room. Wards had computer rooms that patients could use and were risk assessed for internet access. Wards had quiet rooms available for patients to use at any time.

Patients had access to outside space, with open access to gardens throughout the day.

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 were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as self-harm, vulnerability or violence towards others and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. There was a good staff presence on the wards throughout the service during the inspection. Staff were engaging with patients and noticed and responded to any change in risks.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. We reviewed patient records and incident logs, these included evidence of de-escalation attempts being used before physical interventions.

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 felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud working for the service and their team.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff had access to a free and confidential counselling service. Staff received reflective practice sessions led by psychology and were debriefed following incidents.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. For example, the service held staff awards. Leaders provided staff with positive feedback when they did something well and leaders told us positive feedback from carers was shared in the morning meetings they attended.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. The provider supported a cohort of healthcare support workers to complete a nursing qualification.