Sturdee Community 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

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Most patients we spoke with felt staff were kind and caring. A relative told us staff were kind and caring and gave examples of how they had gone that extra mile to support their family member.

We saw a mixed picture of staff interacting with patients. We saw some staff with patients and minimal interaction and saw other examples of positive interactions between staff and patients.

A patient told us some staff were caring but others were not. Patients we spoke with told us staff respected their privacy and dignity. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services (including advocacy).

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Some staff felt they could not raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients and staff without fear of the consequences. This is described in more detail in the well- led section of this report.

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.

Staff understood patients’ individual needs and told us how they promoted person centred care and this included supporting activities people were interested in.

Patients were supported by an occupational therapist to develop activity plans based on their preferences, interests and hobbies. Examples were provided and included cooking sessions, college, volunteering work and financial management to support goals, aspirations and recovery.

Patient’s individual needs were respected and promoted. Information about each patient’s equality and diversity needs and unique backgrounds was collected at assessment and used to develop care and treatment plans.

A patient told us they had opportunities to provide feedback about their experience of care and treatment during monthly community meetings.

Patients on Aylestone ward had individual flats and told us they could personalise this space and found their flat comfortable. A staff member commented (about Rutland and Foxton wards) that the ward environment had become ‘sterile’ (a lack of homely comforts) because of the amount of risk to be managed.

The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

A relative told us their family member (a patient) had not been given enough notice regarding a move to another ward within the hospital and this had a negative impact on the patient. The provider told us the decision to move the patient quickly was a clinical decision. However, we were not assured the increased risk could not have been managed while also providing the patient with more notice.

Community meetings were held monthly. However, records showed minimal attendance and at times no attendance recorded on Foxton Ward (though occupancy was low on this ward at the time of our inspection). Community meeting records showed several patients reported concerns regarding the lack of variety in the food options provided. They expressed a desire for more diverse meal choices. The provider was taking action to improve mealtimes, and this was included in the service improvement plan.

Where appropriate, patients could access community leave when assessed as ready to do so. Staff supported patients to visit shops and facilities with the aim to increase independence, choice and control.

Staff knew how each patient preferred to be supported. Patients had access to advocacy services.

Individual psychology and occupational therapy sessions took place with the aim to monitor mood and wellbeing and to move to more independent living.

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 identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues and completed risk assessments, such as nutritional risks or risks associated with prescribed medicines and care planned for these accordingly. They understood patients ‘triggers’ for distress and what to do to de escalate situations and provide reassurance and support.

Staff had fist aid training and records showed appropriate medical attention was sought as required.

We saw staff responded in an appropriate manner to support a patient who was distressed and at risk of harm.

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.

Some staff did not feel listened to or felt they were treated differently to other staff by some managers.

The provider’s most recent staff survey results (January 2025) showed that 68% of responders were satisfied or very satisfied working at the service. Thirty percent of responders were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied working at the service and 2% did not feel that questions were relevant to them. Several comments related to cultural concerns. Some staff felt there were groups of people who were treated differently or excluded from groups.

We were given similar feedback from some staff though most staff felt this situation was improving and had significantly improved since a new leadership team and hospital director was put in place. The provider was aware of these concerns and were speaking with staff in team meetings and encouraging them to come forward with any issues they had.

Staff were offered reflective practice with the psychology team to discuss any clinical incidents in order to reflect and learn from these.