Spire Portsmouth 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.

At our last assessment we rated caring good. At this assessment the rating has remained at good.

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. Staff 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 scanning room responded to patient’s concerns about their procedure and took steps to reduce the stress within the environment. This included the use of music, family members or carers being nearby. Patients who were particularly anxious or had additional needs were able to have somebody familiar with them as much as possible.

Before and during procedures, staff offered reassurance and clearly explained any information. For example, staff communicated regularly with a patient and checked how they were feeling during an MRI scan, which could take up to an hour.

In the scanning room, staff maintained patients dignity by making sure they were only exposed as necessary during procedures. We also saw staff helping patients to cover themselves before scans and robes were readily available for patients when they changed out of their clothes. If patients became distressed in the scanning environment, staff worked to support them with compassion and helped to maintain their dignity.

Staff were respectful to patients. Patients said staff treated them with kindness. One relative spoke positively about how staff had gone out of their way to help them with a query which wasn’t part of their normal role. Other patients and relatives told us how staff made sure they had access to drinks whilst waiting to help them feel more comfortable. During our assessment, many patients told us they would recommend the service to a friend or family member.

Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential, using secure systems and record keeping.

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.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs. For example, staff took account of the individual needs of patients who may have additional needs and provided reassurance where needed. Staff spoke about the tailored support they gave to different patient groups and how they respected people’s individual needs.

Feedback was gathered through patient surveys and concerns were responded to. Scanning records, we reviewed were tailored to individual needs and circumstances. For example, staff recorded whether people had received the type of scan in the past, so they could tailor their advice and support.

Staff gave patients help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. Patients said staff had been helpful and supportive.

Staff were able help patients who needed additional support. For example, patients living with dementia or who had communication needs could have longer appointment slots.

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 provided reassurance throughout the scan, they updated the patient on how long they had been in the scanner and how long was left. Patients had a panic button they could press any time during the scan to summon help. Staff could stop the scanning immediately if the patient requested this.

Staff supported patients to make advanced and informed decisions about their care. Patients told us they were provided with information to explain their treatment and we saw staff gained their consent and explained each procedure.

Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment. All patients we spoke with said staff had explained care and treatment clearly. Information could be given to people in different formats, such as different languages or in large print.

Staff provided choice and control to patients, such as use of the call bell, trying the scan beforehand or bringing someone with them. Patients could choose music to listen to whilst they were having a scan, helping them to relax and feel more comfortable.

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 could summon staff and there were emergency call bells sited close to patient treatment areas. People who used mobility aids such as walking frames or crutches had them close by and were assisted to use them after their scan was completed.

Staff gave patients and those close to them, help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. They were empathetic and considerate of the stress of a scanning environment. For example, staff took their time to explain information to patients and made sure to provide a calm atmosphere. Staff ensured specific concerns about scans were addressed before they began.

When patients felt concerned or distressed about their scan, staff were able to respond to these and provide support. For example, staff used mirrors within the scanning room so patients could see out of the scanner tunnel, helping to reduce feelings of claustrophobia. Patients could also choose to wear ear muffs to help reduce discomfort caused by the noise of the machine.

Staff were able to offer people longer appointment times to meet their needs, as well as providing urgent slots which people could access at short notice. Patients were able to receive support from their carer if they had one. Family members, friends and carers were able to stay within sight of the patient during a scan or talk to them through the control room, providing reassurance.

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.

There were multiple wellbeing initiatives staff could access. This included 6 mental health first aiders each from a different speciality, 2 of which were also wellbeing champions. Staff could contact them for emotional or mental health support. Staff had access to indoor and outdoor facilities to ensure they had an area for rest breaks.

Leaders valued workforce wellbeing. Staff had access to support networks, advice and resources sent by weekly wellbeing emails. This included mental health awareness for men and women and physical health events at a local gym.

Local staff events were arranged to support physical, emotional and mental well-being and help raise funds for local charities. Staff told us that these were supported by the senior leadership team.

Staff were able to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences and could expect a response. We heard examples of how staff were able to contribute to service development. However, some areas of the recent staff survey showed a low satisfaction level amongst staff in areas such as respect, wellbeing and strategic alignment. Colleague engagement survey results were recently shared with Heads of Department and were being developed into departmental action plans.

The provider and local leaders ensured that staff with protected characteristics felt included and respected within the service. Staff had access to equality, diversity and inclusion networks and we heard examples of how individual adjustments had been made for staff to help them carry out their role.