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

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.

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.

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. We saw patients, and their families, were treated promptly and respectfully in the waiting area. There were positive interactions between staff and patients in all areas.

Patients we spoke with were positive about the care and treatment received in the department from all staff including clinical and administrative staff. Patients told us staff were kind and professional and this was reflected in patient survey results.

Quiet rooms and an additional waiting area were available for those who preferred a calmer environment. Clinic rooms were clearly marked that they were busy so there was no intrusion on the patient’s privacy. Consultants greeted patients and escorted them into consulting rooms.

Patients were offered chaperones and there were notices that outlined the chaperone service. If a patient preferred someone close to them, this could be accommodated. Chaperones had received training and were signed off as competent.

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 treated people as individuals. We saw positive interactions between staff and patients. Staff spoke with people in a way they could understand and had a good understanding of their individual needs and preferences.

There were posters in waiting areas that signposted help available if information was required in large text, sign language, easy read text or braille. Staff had access to communication aids, translation services and hearing loops were available.

All eligible staff had completed equality, diversity and human rights training. Staff also completed dementia awareness and autism awareness training as part of their mandatory training. They said learning from this training helped them adapt their communication style and better understand sensory and processing needs. Staff described the training as powerful because facilitators shared their lived experience.

Teams discussed all high‑risk patients during the daily safety huddles so they could plan extra support where needed. This meant patients who required closer monitoring, additional communication or personalised adjustments were identified early in the day.

Staff used the risk assessment process to tailor contact to individual needs. Nurses followed up flagged responses with phone calls to clarify health information, provide reassurance and make sure patients understood their planned procedure.

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 provided with information on what to expect before treatment and how to prepare for their treatment.

We saw medical and nursing staff discussing patient’s treatment options with them. Staff acted with compassion when the patient showed signs of distress, noticing changes in behaviour, initiating supportive conversations, and escalating concerns as required.

The physiotherapy team worked with patients to support them to meet their goals quickly and reduce their length of stay in hospital after their procedure.

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.

The service listened to people’s needs; patients told us they were happy with the service. They said there was good communication regarding their appointments and staff were friendly and approachable.

Duty of Candour processes were built into the electronic incident system, which ensured any incident causing harm triggered timely conversations and documentation.

Emergencies were unusual in outpatients. However, staff described a consistent commitment to recognising distress quickly and responding in ways that minimised discomfort, anxiety or confusion. Staff told us most emergencies related to minor issues such as dizziness, dehydration or feeling faint. Staff described how they would stay with patients during emergencies and offer reassurance throughout.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The service had experienced challenges with consistent leadership and oversight due to long term sickness within the outpatient department. Staff told us as a result they did not always feel supported. The hospital leadership team acknowledged the concern and the director of clinical services worked directly in the department to provide leadership.

During this period, an organisational restructure had also resulted in a reduction in substantive staffing through redundancies. Although some staff returned as bank workers to cover shifts, reliance on temporary staff impacted team stability and continuity. Staff described the impact this had on team cohesion and morale, with one stating, “We’re relying on bank staff most days, which makes it difficult to build a consistent way of working.” Another commented, “It feels unsettled since the restructure, and we don’t always have the same level of support.”

As a result, systems to support staff wellbeing, engagement, and effective team functioning were not consistently embedded.