Spire Cambridge Lea 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 patient were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We assessed the levels of patient’s privacy and dignity afforded to patients. We asked patients to tell us about their experiences, if they were respected, if 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 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 outstanding. 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 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.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff introduced themselves to patients and said what their role was. They were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. They took their time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

Staff in the anaesthetic room and endoscopy suite responded to patient’s anxieties about their procedure and took steps to reduce stress within the environment.

In theatres, staff covered patients as much as possible to avoid unnecessary exposure. Staff trated patients with respect while they were anaesthetised. On the ward and when moving around the hospital, patients were encouraged and supported to be dressed or appropriately covered at all times.

Patients told us staff treated them well and with kindness.

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; taking into account 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.

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.

Patients were encouraged to be as independent as soon as they were able following surgery. This included mobilising and moving independently around the ward area, toilets and bathroom. Physiotherapists provided exercise routines when needed and supported patients to learn new ways of moving, so they could be up out of bed as soon as possible.

Staff listened to patients’ views. the service sent surveys to all patients following an inpatient stay. The service asked patients if they felt informed, involved and supported by staff. We looked at feedback data following our assessment, which showed overwhelmingly positive results. The data showed that almost all respondents felt involved in decision making.

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 and provided timely pain relief. 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.

Patients could summon staff with a call bell and staff frequently went to their rooms to assess their needs. People appeared well cared for, clean and with the items they needed such as glasses or walking aids close by. Staff encouraged people, where able, to eat and drink sufficient to maintain health.

Emergency call bells were positioned close to each bed and within recovery and theatre areas to ensure staff could call for additional and expert help quickly.

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 an operating theatre environment.

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 for duty doctors, and the availability of food and drinks out of hours. The resident medical officer had access to private sleeping, changing, showering and toilet facilities.

Staff told us they felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. Adaptions were available to staff uniforms enabling staff to dress in accordance with their cultural practices.

The service introduced 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.