Tynedale Hospice at Home

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.

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 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 80 (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 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff consistently demonstrated a kind, compassionate and respectful approach when caring for patients and those close to them. During visits, staff interactions were warm and person centred. They took time to introduce themselves, explain care and engage meaningfully with patients and families.

Patients and families told us they felt well cared for and treated with dignity and respect. Staff responded sensitively to patients who were anxious, distressed or approaching the end of life, offering reassurance and emotional support. They adapted their approach to meet individual needs, including those with communication difficulties, cognitive impairment or personal preferences.

Communication was clear, compassionate and tailored to the individual. Patients and families were involved in discussions about care and treatment, and information was provided in a way that supported understanding.

Emotional support was a key strength of the service. Patients and families were supported throughout their care, including during difficult conversations about end of life planning. Staff were attentive to emotional and psychological needs and signposted to additional support where required.

As well as the hospice at home service. Other services offered to patients and their families included transport services, family support services, complementary therapies and a dementia service.

One patients’ family member told us the nurses always treated her and her husband with kindness, dignity and respect- she always felt the nurses listened to her. The nurses always asked how she was coping and cared for her wellbeing both physically and mentally- she “never felt alone”.

Another patient family told us on a scale of 1-100 for the best ever care they would give 1000, and that during the most “heartbreaking and saddest times in our lives these nurses were a light in our darkness”.

We scored the service as 3. 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 service provided highly person-centred care, with staff taking time to understand what mattered most to each patient and tailoring care accordingly. Patients and families described feeling listened to and involved in decision making, with care adapted to meet individual preferences, needs and circumstances. Staff used a range of communication methods, including interpreters where required, to ensure patients understood their care and could express their wishes.

Staff supported patients with practical needs such as ensuring access to hearing aids, glasses and oral care, and there was evidence that comfort and dignity were prioritised.

The service was responsive to cultural, religious and social needs. Families were supported to remain involved, and flexible visiting arrangements enabled patients to maintain close relationships and mark important moments.

Care was inclusive and considerate of protected characteristics, with reasonable adjustments made for patients with disabilities, sensory impairments, learning disabilities or dementia. Staff demonstrated awareness of the need to reduce distress and support familiarity, including involving carers where appropriate. We heard several examples of patients, including those who were vulnerable, being supported by the hospice service to remain at home. These accounts demonstrated a consistent approach to enabling people to receive care in a familiar environment, in line with their preferences and assessed needs.

We heard about the dementia café ran by the service. The weekly session at the time of inspection involved a “name that tune” activity. This supported people to engage through familiar music, encouraged social interaction and helped to promote wellbeing and inclusion.

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 promoted patients’ independence, choice and control over their care and wellbeing. Staff supported people to make informed decisions about their treatment and daily routines, ensuring they were aware of their rights and able to express their preferences. Care was flexible and adapted to individual wishes, with staff encouraging patients to remain as independent as possible within the limits of their condition.

Patients and families were actively involved in planning and reviewing care, including decisions about where and how they wished to be supported. Staff respected personal choices, including when patients chose to decline aspects of care, and worked collaboratively to manage risks while maintaining autonomy.

We heard examples of the hospice’s sensitive approach to care. Staff recognised when individuals may feel more comfortable and responded appropriately. This person-centred approach helped to ensure people felt at ease and supported in a way that respected their preferences and dignity.

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 responded promptly to patients’ needs and demonstrated a proactive approach to recognising and addressing discomfort or distress. During visits, staff were attentive and observant, intervening when patients appeared uncomfortable, anxious or in need of support. Patients were supported to remain clean, comfortable and well cared for, with essential items such as mobility aids, glasses and personal belongings kept within reach.

Emotional support was a key strength, with staff responding sensitively to patients and families who were coping with life limiting conditions. Conversations were handled with empathy, and staff understood the wider emotional and social impact of care.

The service demonstrated awareness of individual needs, including those of patients with cognitive impairment, and adapted care to reduce distress and promote comfort. Staff listened to patients and those close to them and were able to anticipate needs, helping to prevent avoidable discomfort or anxiety.

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 told us they felt valued and respected, and described a culture where their wellbeing was recognised as important. They were able to access support when needed, including informal support from colleagues and managers, as well as access to wider wellbeing resources. Staff gave examples of receiving support following emotionally challenging situations, including caring for patients at the end of life and after distressing events.

Systems were in place to support safe working, particularly for staff delivering care in the community. Lone working arrangements were well understood, with staff able to escalate concerns and access support if needed. Staff told us they felt safe in their roles and that risks were taken seriously, including those relating to personal safety.

Workload was generally manageable, and rotas were planned to enable appropriate rest breaks and continuity of care. Where pressures arose, staff described supportive leadership and teamwork to manage demand safely. Staff had access to the equipment and resources they needed to carry out their roles effectively.

However, whilst the staff and volunteer survey results (February 2026) showed generally positive experiences, overall staff satisfaction had declined since 2025. Some staff reported low trust in leadership, inconsistent access to development and variable experiences of feeling valued and listened to. Team working across the organisation was not always seen as effective.

The organisation had responded by sharing findings openly, discussing results in teams, and increasing leadership visibility through organisation-wide visits. Early actions included improving communication, increasing staff involvement, strengthening cross-team working, and supporting wellbeing through staff-led initiatives.