Sue Ryder - Wheatfields Hospice

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

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated people as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. Managers did not support staff wellbeing.

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored this quality statement 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.

People told us staff provided very good care and that they had not experienced or witnessed poor practice. They described the care as individualised and said their pain was well managed. People felt safe, informed, and said they did not have to wait for pain relief. Some commented that staff went the extra mile.

People said they felt they built stronger relationships with permanent staff, who better understood their needs.

Staff described how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity through personalised care, the use of privacy curtains, and signage to prevent interruptions.

Staff said that when staffing levels were sufficient, they had time to build relationships with people and their families, allowing for more personalised care. However, they were not always able to meet preferences for specific staff members or gender due to staffing constraints.

Staff told us they involved families and offer emotional and practical support to them.

Staff said the care provided was very good, though not always meeting the high standards they had set for themselves.

Leaders described how they monitored care quality through a structured audit programme, which included both provider-led and local audits. We reviewed examples of both. Leaders explained that audit results were shared with staff through the quality improvement group, team meetings, staff forums, and a shared folder on the hospice’s computer drive.

We observed staff interacting with people with knowledge and understanding of their individual needs. Staff focused on learning about people and those close to them to understand their wishes, preferences, and care priorities. They were kind, compassionate, respectful, and committed to maintaining people’s comfort and dignity.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.