Sturdee Community Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Most patients we spoke with felt staff had a good understanding of their needs and preferences. Patients could choose how they spent their days, including activities they enjoyed. We saw a staff member spending time with a patient listening to and dancing to the music the patient liked.

Staff described a person-centred approach to care and treatment. They took patient’s cultural, psychological, physical and social needs into consideration when planning and developing care and treatment plans.

Person centred care was reflected within care planning and through the provider’s policies, processes and training.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients and relatives told us they had access to the community services they required. Staff gave us examples of interventions which had supported patients’ recovery and resulted in a reducing restrictive intervention and increased community leave and independence. Some patients who were further along with their care and treatment pathways had access to education and work.

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of patients. Staff had a good knowledge of each patient’s individual needs and ensured choice and support was offered in a flexible way.

The provider carried out a patient survey in August 2025 which included 12 of 21 patients who agreed to take part. Results showed overall satisfaction was at 41%. Action was planned to improve all areas with negative responses including the environment and activities. Responses to the question ‘Do you feel involved in decisions about care and treatment’ were at 41% positive, 15% neutral, 23% could do better and 15% not answered.

The provider planned to repeat this survey in February 2026.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers and involved them in decision making where appropriate.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

A document known as the ‘patient guide’ was provided to patients when they were admitted to the hospital. This document set out the terms and conditions of admission, what patients could expect, how support was provided and how individual social, cultural diversity needs could be accommodated.

Patients we spoke with said they had access to information in accessible formats.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard because staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. They did this through phone calls and inviting them to meetings such as the multidisciplinary meetings where this was appropriate.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy and displayed information about how to complain. This included information about advocacy services and how to contact external organisations.

The provider’s complaint tracker recorded 23 complaints. These were investigated in line with the providers policy and referred to external agencies appropriately. However, 5 of the 8 patients we spoke with did not feel comfortable raising a complaint because they did not always feel they would be believed or listened to. We were not assured all complaints were escalated appropriately. One patient told us they did not receive any response or feedback after making a complaint.

Some staff also told us they did not have confidence their complaints would be taken seriously.

Complaints were discussed at the provider’s ‘all staff’ meeting in July 2025. A staff member we spoke with told us “If a patient wants to raise complaint, usually in the first instance it would be a chat with ward manager or nurse in charge.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The providers had an admission, referral and discharge policy which required staff to carry out an impact assessment of individual protected characteristics for every patient. The provider told us and records confirmed, patients cultural, dietary, and religious needs were identified and planned for.

Staff gave examples of contacting and arranging support with external agencies so patients could access the support they required. The psychology team arranged for an autism assessment for a patient, and this meant they could access support and services for people with autism.

Staff had attended 2 days additional training about the HOPE (harness, opportunities, preventative, enhance) model which is a human rights-based approach to reduce restrictive practice in complex care.

The hospital was accessible for people with physical disabilities.

The provider told us there were no delayed discharges at the time of our inspection. Post discharge support was offered. We were given examples of transitional support provided after discharge and continued ‘checks ins’ with the social worker.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

The provider’s policies and procedures were inclusive and considered the impact and barriers patients with protected characteristics may experience. Protected characteristics described in the Equality Act 2010 were considered in relation to race, faith, age, gender, disability, and sexual orientation.

Staff worked collaboratively with patients and external professionals to develop therapeutic recovery-based plans of care. Examples were provided of comprehensive long-term plans to support transition from hospital care to community living.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about patients’ future plans and wishes regarding discharge from the hospital to a less restrictive setting and towards independent living. One staff member said “Everyone has tentative discharge dates recorded, patients who are soon to be discharged have discharge planning meetings.”

The service was organised to promote transition to a less restrictive setting with an admission ward, step down support ward and semi-independent living flats. A psychologist described how ‘transition’ for each patient was considered from the first day of admission and discussed in detail at every multidisciplinary meeting.

Some patients and family members we spoke with expressed some frustration about the length of time they spent at the hospital and many being placed a long way from their home and families. However, these factors were outside of the providers’ control.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.