St Anthony's 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the remains good. This meant people always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

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 demonstrated caring and respectful behaviours when interacting with patients and those close to them. We observed staff providing emotional support, answering questions and responding to patients’ needs in a timely manner.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. During our assessment, we spoke with 5 patients and observed 2 patients being admitted to ICU from theatre. We observed staff treating these patients with dignity, care, compassion and we saw the medical team discussing patients in a low voice, respecting their dignity and demonstrating empathy. We observed that staff interactions maintained the confidentiality of patient’s information.

Patients told us that staff were very supportive, they involved them in discussion at each stage of their care and recovery journey. Patients also reported to us that staff were kind, compassionate and provided support to accelerate their transfer to the ward. We spoke to a patient that was transferred to the ward from the critical care unit. They told us that staff treated them well, with kindness and behaved appropriately toward them. They also told us that staff were very patient, understanding and provided them with reassurance. Their room was very clean, and there were leaflets containing information such as interpreting services, how to escalate complaints and advocacy services.

The service received complaints through a centralised software platform (DCIQ). Complaints data were included in the Quality and Safety Report (QSR). Between June 2025 and May 2026, the hospital received 1 complaint related to the critical care unit, which was under investigation at the time of this assessment.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. We reviewed some patient records and they contained information that was specific to individuals. Staff followed the provider policy to ensure that they keep patients’ care and treatment confidential. Staff could tell us how to raise concerns about abusive, discriminatory behaviours and disrespectful attitudes toward patients

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 layout of the service provided easy access of people in the unit and there were services available to meet patients’ specific needs of communication. Patients told us that they were supported throughout their post-surgical recovery journey and their transfer to ward and information was available to access other services. They also stated that the service made the necessary adjustments to ensure that they were comfortable. They felt supported and staff took the time to provide reassurance, answered every question, and asked and adapted the care received to each patient requirement. We observed porter staff transferring patients from theatre to critical care in a caring and compassionate way. During the transfer one of the patients was unconscious. Once settled in the unit, the curtain was closed to maintain their privacy and dignity and we saw staff discussing the patient condition in a low voice and remained by the patient bedside throughout.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. Information was available throughout the unit and easily accessible, written in an understanding format. The information leaflets we reviewed were available in different languages. Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and signers services.

Staff understood that patients in critical care were not always able to communicate in the way they would normally do and needed additional support. They adapted the means of communication to facilitate and enable communication with patients and their relatives using different tools such as visual boards.

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.

People were supported and encouraged to have control over their own care and make decisions about their treatment and wellbeing and knew their rights. Patients told us that procedures were explained to them in detail and the necessary permissions were sought, including permission to contact their relatives. Staff took the time to answer any questions and concerns, including after-care and offered the option to say yes or no to the procedure. In the critical unit, they were helpful, available, and provided the right level of support when needed. A physiotherapist was available daily to help patients with their physical recovery and encourage independence.

Patients were supported to maintain a relationship with friends and family members through having extended visiting times between 10am and 7pm. Individual circumstances were assessed to accommodate visits outside of these hours. There were no facilities within the hospital for relatives who wished to remain with patients during their stay in the critical care unit. However, the hospital had relationships with local hotels to accommodate relatives who wanted to stay close whilst a patient was in the unit.

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.

Staff were aware of and knew how to deal with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and planned patients care accordingly. The critical care patient clinical risk assessment audit showed 100% compliance. We saw staff taking a person-centre approach to maintaining patients’ comfort, including managing pain, supporting repositioning and providing reassurance to patients and their relatives. They identified, responded and adapted to patients changing risks. We observed staff treating patients with a positive attitude and actively interacted with them whilst attending to their needs.

Patients told us call bells were answered quickly. Staff encouraged fluid intake and provided emotional support within the critical environment. Patients appeared well cared for, and personal belongings were accessible.

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.

Staff told us that they felt respected, supported and valued by the team. They had regular breaks and resting periods. We saw a staff room adequately equipped with a shower and toilet facilities. They told us that they felt supported by their direct line managers. Staff told us that managers were visible, accessible and during busy periods, they offered to help whenever possible. Staff could access support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. We saw posters throughout the unit with information about the wellbeing team and information promoting staff wellbeing. Staff could use an anonymous comment box, surveys and meetings to submit comments or raise concerns and make suggestions on ways to improve the service.

However, some staff told us that they did not feel valued by the provider. The Spire Healthcare 2025 staff survey results showed that 43% of people were willing to recommend the company as a great place to work; 45% felt supported in their overall wellbeing and 46% were engaged and motivated to meet or exceed their goals. Staff recounted to us that their concerns were not always considered by the service, neither were staff consulted before any change was implemented within the service. They told us that they reported some bullying from some colleague to senior managers and HR, but no concrete action was taken to address the issue. Those who reported these issues looked distressed and their body language showed that they were apprehensive about recounting these incidents and feared the repercussions. We provided the reassurance that their anonymity would be preserved by not disclosing any information that would enable them to be identified. We raised this concern with senior leaders. They told us they believed appropriate action had already been taken but agreed to review the concern further to ensure they had been fully addressed.

Overall, staff told us that they were proud to work in the critical care team, there was a very good team cohesion, it felt like a family, and they were proud of their contribution in the recovery process of patients.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. However, staff told us that they did not have regular appraisals. While the policy stated that appraisals should occur annually, some staff told us that their last appraisal dated 2 years ago. They also told us that during appraisals, opportunities for development were not discussed and they were difficult to access.