Spire Southampton 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 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. We also spoke with staff to understand how the service supported their wellbeing.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating remains good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for and were treated with dignity and respect.

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.

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 put patients at the centre of what they did. They took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

We observed a patient journey from the ward down to theatre and into recovery. We saw the staff speak to the patient with kindness and compassion. The operating department practitioner explained what they were doing at each stage. When the patient was asleep following the anaesthetic, the team always maintained the patients' dignity. Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential. Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs.

During our inspection we spoke with over 30 patients to gain feedback about the service. We also reviewed Friends Family Test (FFT) data and patient feedback received from the service. The FFT gives people who use the service the opportunity to highlight both good and poor patient experience. FFT data from the 3 months prior to our inspection showed that 97% of patients rated their care as `good' or `very good', 81% of this was `very good'.

Patient feedback from inspection was on the whole positive. Patients spoke of caring staff who supported them during treatment. This was also noticeable in service feedback which showed that 94% of patients agree or agreed strongly that they `felt really cared for/looked after'. Patients provided a wide range of positive feedback to our inspectors such as `I honestly couldn't ask for more. All staff lovely caring, and super professional'.

We observed staff working week together with respect and kindness. There was a focus on patient centred care and ensuring their needs were responded to. Patient feedback highlighted the way staff worked together well with comments such as `The entire team worked seamlessly together'. Another patient said, `All staff were competent and courteous'.

The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care. Patients were given the opportunity to ask questions, so they understood the decisions they were being asked to make and to ensure they understood their treatment. One patient told us ‘My surgeon demonstrated genuine compassion and took the time to explain everything clearly and answer all my questions’. Another patient said, ‘Consultants have taken time to explain condition, risks options and care plan’.

A modified pain scale was used for patients on the ward who were living with dementia. Patient feedback showed that 84% of patient agreed or agreed strongly that they were ‘made to feel special’. We spoke with a patient about their treatment journey and they told us, ‘There were Multidisciplinary meetings held with other specialist teams which was really important to me. Knowing that the right care is there at the right time’. We saw evidence of reasonable adjustments for patients with additional needs which reduced anxiety and improved access to treatment.

Staff made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment. Staff talked to patients in a way they could understand, using communication aids where necessary. Staff told us they had different ways to communicate with patients who had different communication needs. The service was able to provide information in a wide range of formats including multiple languages and ‘easy read’. There was access to interpretation services and all clinical areas had access to hearing aid loops. There was also a quiet room available for reflection and religious practice. We saw that this room included a range of religious resources to support individual practice of faith.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patient feedback provided by the service showed that 94% of patients said they felt fully informed at all times. In addition to this, 88% of patients agreed or strongly agreed with the care statement, ‘It was effortless’. On average 96% of patients said they were likely to use the service again with 95% saying the service met or exceeded their expectations. A patient told our inspectors, ‘Staff were communicative every step of the way and made me feel really safe’. FFT Data showed that the service had received an average satisfaction rating of 97%.

Patients were supported to have choice and control over their own care and make decisions about their treatment and wellbeing. Each patient had their own room on the ward. Patients had single rooms with ensuite facilities and families could visit them for longer hours during the day. There was equipment in most rooms to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment. However, we observed that some patient rooms did not have showering facilities. This minimised the ability to wash easily for some patients. Two patients told us that their rooms had baths which they were unable to use independently due to having surgery on their knee. This meant they were unable to shower independently and had to be supported by a family member of staff to maintain personal hygiene.

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 made sure patients living with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia, received the necessary care to meet all their needs. The service had a dementia and learning disability champion. Patient were overwhelmingly positive about staff responding to their needs with one patient saying, ‘Every step of the way I have been met with dignity and care, with my every need met’. Another patient told us ‘Undergoing surgery was a major source of anxiety for me. However, my experience completely transformed that anxiety into a feeling of confidence and security’.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Senior leaders told us they ensured staff well-being was important within their culture. The service had 7 Mental Health First Aiders. These staff fed into the provider level Wellbeing Ambassador Network. This group met regularly to provide support allowing them in turn to offer support and advice to colleagues where needed.

Senior leaders undertook daily walkarounds of the service to speak with staff and observe clinical environments. The service promoted the ‘inspiring people’ campaign which encouraged staff to nominate their colleagues who they felt ‘went the extra mile’. We saw evidence of these awards given to staff who celebrated patient centred care. The service celebrated recognition days such as ‘World Kindness Day’. Leaders told us this day recognised the importance of kindness to support a culture of civility, speaking up and patient safety.