Archived: Swadlincote Station

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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 some shortfalls. We could not be assured that the service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respected their privacy and dignity.

The provider did not maintain oversight of the clinical care provided to patients, as operational staff were employed and managed by a subcontractor. As a result, we were not assured that patients were consistently treated with kindness, compassion, or dignity.

Without direct involvement in patient care or access to detailed patient records, the provider was unable to demonstrate that staff interactions respected individual needs or upheld the principles of compassionate care. This lack of oversight limited the provider’s ability to ensure that patients were supported appropriately.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. We were not assured that the provider always treated people as individuals or ensured that people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences.

The service did not maintain oversight of the clinical care provided to patients. As a result, we were not assured that patients were consistently treated as individuals or that their personal preferences, needs, and values were being recognised and respected in the delivery of care.

Without access to detailed patient records or direct involvement in care, the provider was unable to demonstrate that care was tailored to each person’s unique circumstances. This limited assurance that patients were receiving personalised support or that their dignity and choices were being actively considered in clinical decision-making.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. We were not assured that the service always promoted people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider did not maintain oversight of the clinical care provided to patients, as operational staff were employed and managed by a subcontractor. As a result, we were not assured that patients were consistently supported to exercise independence, make informed choices, or maintain control over decisions relating to their care and treatment.

Without access to detailed patient records or direct involvement in patient care, the provider was unable to demonstrate that patients were actively involved in discussions about their treatment options, or that their preferences and consent were sought and respected. This lack of oversight limited the provider’s ability to ensure that care was person-centred and aligned with the principles of informed decision-making.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. We were not assured that the service always listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes.

The provider did not maintain oversight of the clinical care provided to patients, as operational staff were employed and managed by a subcontractor. As a result, we were not assured that the service was consistently responsive to people’s immediate needs.

Without access to detailed patient records or direct involvement in patient care, the provider was unable to demonstrate that urgent clinical needs were being identified and addressed in a timely and appropriate manner. This lack of oversight limited assurance that patients received prompt interventions or that care was adapted to meet changing circumstances during events.

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

As the provider did not maintain oversight of staff, we were not assured that appropriate measures were in place to support workforce wellbeing, to enable staff to deliver high-quality care.

There was no evidence that the service monitored the training needs or support available to subcontracted staff. Additionally, the absence of induction processes and access to service-specific guidance limited assurance that staff were equipped with the knowledge and resources necessary to carry out their roles effectively and safely. Without direct engagement or oversight, the provider was unable to demonstrate that staff wellbeing was prioritised or that systems were in place to promote a positive and supportive working environment.