Spire Harpenden 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. 

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.  

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 observed staff providing compassionate and reassuring care throughout each stage of the endoscopy pathway. Staff anticipated patients’ needs, explained procedures clearly and provided reassurance before, during and after procedures. They responded promptly to concerns and adapted their approach to support individual needs and reduce anxiety. 

Patients consistently described staff as kind, caring and empathetic. Patient feedback from 134 patients between June 2025 and 2026, showed 99% of patients agreed or strongly agreed they felt cared for, while 100% said their privacy and dignity were respected during procedures and recovery, and 98% while waiting for treatment. Patients told us staff took time to listen, provide reassurance and answer questions, helping them feel relaxed, informed and confident during what could be a worrying experience. This compassionate and personalised approach helped reduce anxiety and ensured people felt supported throughout their care. The service had also maintained a recognised accreditation from a cancer charity, providing independent assurance of its commitment to delivering a positive patient experience and supportive care environment for people receiving cancer treatment. 

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and created an environment where patients felt valued as individuals. Staff told us they felt confident raising concerns about behaviour towards patients that did not reflect the service’s values, helping to promote a respectful and compassionate culture.

Staff completed regular holistic assessments to understand people's physical, emotional and practical needs and used this information to personalise support. Staff worked proactively with patients to plan treatment around important life events, including holidays and travel, helping them maintain their independence and continue activities that were important to them during treatment.  

Staff also adapted care to meet people's communication, cultural, spiritual and dietary needs, with interpretation services and multi-faith facilities available when required.  

Staff told us that, because patients attended regularly throughout their treatment journey, they developed a detailed understanding of their circumstances, preferences and support needs, which enabled them to tailor care and respond to changes quickly.  

Patients consistently told us staff took time to understand them as individuals and tailor support to their circumstances. This personalised approach helped people maintain choice, control and quality of life throughout their treatment and demonstrated a clear commitment to providing care that reflected what mattered most to them.

Patients told us staff took time to explain procedures and treatment options clearly and supported them to make informed decisions about their care. Patients said they felt involved in decisions and were confident discussing their preferences and concerns with staff.  

Staff used holistic assessments to understand people’s needs and preferences and used this information to inform care and treatment. Records showed personalised management plans reflecting individual needs, preferences and circumstances, and there was evidence of shared decision-making.  

Patients told us staff listened to their views, understood what mattered to them and involved them in decisions about their care. 

Staff anticipated potential risks and adverse reactions by carrying out ongoing assessments, monitoring patients closely throughout treatment and using recognised toxicity and escalation tools to identify changes in people's conditions at an early stage.  

Staff told us they remained beyond the unit’s normal operating hours to ensure one patient, who required chemotherapy to be administered over an extended period, could complete their treatment safely and without disruption. This enabled the patient to receive treatment in a way that reflected their individual needs rather than being constrained by the service’s usual operating arrangements. 

Patients also had prompt access to specialist support when concerns arose. One patient told us they were able to speak directly with their oncologist when needed, and staff described how consultants, clinical nurse specialists and resident medical officers worked together to respond quickly to changing needs and concerns.  

We observed staff managing pain effectively, providing reassurance and anticipating patients' needs throughout their care. Patients told us they knew who to contact if they were worried and felt supported to access help when needed.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt well supported by colleagues and leaders. In endoscopy, staff described how leaders recognised the challenges of working within a small team and took action to improve engagement and support. Staff said relationships had improved and they no longer felt so isolated. 

Leaders invested in staff development and wellbeing. Staff completed additional non-mandatory post graduate training to develop specialist skills, and heads of department told us they were supported to develop in their roles and make decisions based on local service needs. This enabled teams to respond flexibly to patient needs and support service delivery. 

Staff told us they could raise concerns and felt confident they would be listened to. Staff survey feedback completed in 2025, identified areas of strength including inclusion, teamworking and supportive leadership. 

Leaders promoted an inclusive working environment and recognised the value of a diverse workforce. Staff had access to wellbeing support services, employee assistance programmes and staff forums. The hospital provided a multi-faith prayer facility, catered for a range of religious and cultural dietary requirements and celebrated a variety of religious and cultural events throughout the year.  

Leaders demonstrated a commitment to supporting staff with individual needs. We saw evidence of workplace adjustments being made to support colleagues with disabilities, helping create an inclusive and supportive working environment. 

Staffing levels were stable and treatment cancellation rates were low. Leaders also recognised staff contributions through awards and engagement events, helping to promote morale and team cohesion.