Great Oaks 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

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect

At our last inspection we rated this key question as 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.

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.

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 attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. The community service team offered practical advice and signposted patients to the services they required. Counselling services were readily available time to help patients when they were first diagnosed or at any time in their journey. Complimentary therapies and group activities gave opportunities for patients to feel kindness and to be cared for.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. One patient stated “Staff are genuinely very caring people with very good skills and always very clean.” Another carer stated “The dignity and respect they show ‘service user’ is great. They go above and beyond’”

Staff across all grades showed exceptional skill at treating patients with kindness, empathy, and compassion and in how they respected patient’s dignity. The registered manager gave examples where they had provided respectful care and treatment to patients during the final days of their lives. For example, one patient wished to die at home but funding to enable them to stay at home could not be found. The hospice provided hospice at home staff to go to this patient’s home, which meant the hospital admission was avoided and the patient was able to die at home with dignity as was their wish.

The service offered compassionate, personalised support to bereaved families by offering counselling services. Families could access the hospice gardens which provided a peaceful space for reflection and remembrance.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. 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 ensured patients could obtain information on treatments, local services and about patient rights. The hospice supported different types of groups. The service facilitated various groups, such as men’s groups as well as groups specifically for Parkinson’s disease. These groups helped patients share their lived experience and provided support networks for people suffering from different life limiting illnesses. One patient stated “In a season of turmoil and not knowing which way to turn, I felt seen and I felt heard. The opportunity to meet others on a similar journey and to start walking together and provide mutual support had a significant impact on my wellbeing”.

The service used personalised care and support plans which listed information such as individuals’ normal routines, mobility, food preferences, medications, ability to manage household tasks. This enabled staff to offer patients the support and treatment which met their needs.

The service made adjustments for patients by ensuring the premises were accessible and by meeting patient’s specific communication needs. For example, the hospice supported a patient with motor neuron disease and were able to support communication by using an iPad. We were told the service had access to interpreters if required.

Feedback from friends and family was positive. One family stated about the service, “They always have the right information, ‘service user’ smokes and staff are understanding of this and stand outside with them. They know that he likes 2 biscuits with every cup of tea and sometimes that he speaks in German and they navigate this. They know all the staff and feel involved and informed in the care planning as well as what’s going on”.

The service had many ways to obtain feedback. The service was signed up to an external provider that designed individualised questionnaires for evaluation of holistic and personalised approaches to supporting people. This enabled service users to write down the thing that most concerned them, and they want help with and then rate them for severity using a numeric scale.

There was clear information for patients about how to complain. The information provided was in an accessible format. For example, there was an easy read complaints policy available on the website.

The service worked with local religious groups and leaders to ensure patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. The person’s religious needs were considered at the initial assessment.

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.

The service offered holistic care to patients, their family and their carers. The service regularly engaged with patients to obtain their feedback. Staff told us patients and their family members and carers were given choices and their decisions were followed.

Patients were able to choose where they wished to die and the service worked with other local organisations in order to support patients in the environment they choose. We were given examples of how the hospice supported people to die at home by setting up unfunded care packages.

The service supplied supportive networks which enabled patients to remain independent. For example, groups of cancer patients were offered hydrotherapy sessions. This helped ladies access rehabilitation at the pool in a group when they were not confident to go to the pool independently.

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.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues. Staff had access to the patient’s treatment escalation plans and there were health passports for service users to complete. We were told staff would flag any patient that did not have a ReSPECT form with the local trust, GP or district nursing service. A ReSPECT form documents the emergency care and treatment preferences of a person and the clinical recommendations of their healthcare providers. The form isn’t legally binding but serves as a valuable guide for clinicians, especially in urgent situations.

Feedback from patients and families was positive. One patient said staff always asked how they were and checked in regarding their level of pain.

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.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. All staff we spoke with said they felt supported by the organisation. One staff member said “I feel that the organisation is growing and getting stronger. The teams are reaching more people and all services continue to grow. There is a wonderful feeling in the building. Staff care and are very supportive of each other. I truly love my position at Great Oaks and enjoy every working day”. Staff were able to access support and advice 24/7 which was useful when carrying out a night shift. All staff said managers were approachable. In a staff survey carried out in 2025, it stated 86% of staff felt valued by the organisation.

Staff were valued and given pay awards that were equal or slightly above with the pay awards received by staff working in the national health service. Staff had regular appraisals and supervision.

The service staff sickness and absence rates were low. For example, for the last 3 months this stood at 0.33%.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff were able to access the providers own counselling service if required as well as some complimentary therapies.