The Montefiore 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

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We asked patients to tell us about their experiences, if they were respected, if 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 patients’ wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

The service worked with patients to understand and manage risks. Care met patients' needs in a way which was safe and supportive and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them.

When people communicated their needs, emotions or distress, staff could manage this in a positive way which protects their rights and dignity and maximised learning for the future about the causes of their distress.

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.

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 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 treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff introduced themselves to patients and said what their role was. Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. They took their time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. Staff avoided holding private conversations over patients.

People felt staff listened to them and communicated with them in a way they could understand. They said they had their privacy and dignity respected.

In 2025, most patient feedback rated experiences of medical care very highly. However, the response rate for the endoscopy service was low, which limits the amount of feedback available. Steps had been taken to improve response rates. These included making “Be Heard” cards more visible and readily available introducing a QR code for instant feedback and the appointment of a Patient Experience Lead in December to seek feedback across the service.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services for example,

We observed a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. Staff collaborated with other external colleagues for example; the endoscopy service hosted the local NHS bowel screening programme where NHS staff accessed the endoscopy suite in collaboration with endoscopy staff.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated patients as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met patients’ needs and preferences. Staff took account of patient’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The oncology service used a personalised care approach and staff made meaningful connections with patients and their families.

The medical care service made adjustments for patients, for example, by ensuring patients access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. Translation services were available and information was available in accessible formats such as easy read.

Staff understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment, or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them and took steps to support individual circumstances.

Staff understood the anxiety associated with the procedures and supported patients as much as possible. They met the needs of neurodivergent patients by adjusting the timing of procedures, arranging pre‑procedure visits, and working with families or advocates.

The endoscopy service produced an online video, The Endoscopy Patient Journey, to explain the pathway to patients.

Staff assessed patients’ social, psychological, and religious needs at pre‑assessment and recorded these in patients’ notes so that any necessary adjustments could be made before admission.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted patients’ independence, so patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were supported to have choice and control over their own care and make decisions about their treatment and wellbeing. Each endoscopy patient had their own room on the ward to recover from sedation. Oncology patients had their treatment in private treatment pods and there were a selection of quiet areas including a garden for the sole use of oncology patients.

There was a range of complementary oncology support and treatment available for patients to maximise choice and outcomes from care and treatment.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients told us they felt staff communicated with them well and in a way they understood. Patients told us staff were kind and responded very quickly to call bells.

Staff ensured that patients living with mental health conditions and disabilities, received the care they needed, and adapted the service to meet their individual needs. The kitchen catered for different dietary needs.

The endoscopy service had produced a video for patients to watch to allay anxiety and discussed any fears with individuals prior to their procedure.

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-centered care.

Staff we spoke to said they felt respected, supported and valued. Employees had access to a range of wellbeing benefits, including health assessments and an employee assistance programme. A dedicated wellbeing centre provided information, tools and videos for staff seeking additional support. The service had trained mental health first aiders who contributed to the provider’s wellbeing ambassador network. This group met regularly to share updates, offer mutual support, and enable ambassadors to provide advice and assistance to colleagues when needed.

Staff were encouraged to recognise excellent practice. They could submit an excellence form to nominate colleagues who demonstrated outstanding care or support. The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example, through staff awards,

The provider engaged with staff through forums and shared monthly “you said, we did” bulletins. Leaders recognised excellence through encouraging staff to submit individual excellence reports which were shared at the daily huddles. Staff who had an excellence report submitted received a card of thanks from the senior management team with a copy of the excellence report included for personal reflection or revalidation. They also received a gift voucher as a reward. Senior leaders acknowledged that there was a period of instability during 2025 following changes to the staffing model to align with organisational policy, which included a small number of redundancies. Results from the 2025 service‑wide staff survey reflected lower scores in some areas of the service in wellbeing, engagement, and growth and development.

However, all staff we spoke with were positive about working at the service and told us they felt well supported by their managers despite the uncertainty during this period.