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

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.

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.

Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff responded to patients in a timely way. Patients had the opportunity to ask questions and were given access to specialist services, including from allied health professionals.

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 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 kindness, respect and compassion. We observed polite, respectful interactions between staff and patients, and staff spoke to patients in a courteous and considerate way. Staff introduced themselves to patients and explained their roles.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. On the wards and when moving around the hospital, staff supported patients to remain appropriately dressed or covered. In theatre and recovery areas, staff ensured patients were covered as much as possible and avoided unnecessary exposure.

Staff spoke respectfully about patients when working with colleagues and did not refer to patients by bed or room numbers. They shared personal information discreetly and followed policies to protect confidentiality.

Staff offered patients a chaperone during intimate examinations and procedures. A poster explaining this was displayed in the pre-operative assessment area.

Patients we spoke with told us staff treated them well and showed kindness throughout their care. Patients said they felt cared for, respected and well looked after.

One patient said staff were “diamonds” and another said they could not praise staff enough.

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 people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients we spoke with told us the service listened to and respected their individual needs and preferences. We saw this reflected in care records, where staff recorded what mattered to people and planned care around their personal needs.

We observed staff treating people as individuals during the assessment. Staff took account of people’s personal circumstances and adjusted care to meet cultural, social and religious needs where required.

The service also shared examples that showed how staff supported people with specific needs. This included respecting religious beliefs where patients could not receive blood transfusions and making reasonable adjustments to support people who were neurodiverse. These examples showed that staff understood people’s equality characteristics and adapted care to reflect people’s values and preferences.

The service had systems in place to support effective communication and choice. This included access to interpretation and translation services. A communication passport tool was also available to help staff understand and respond to people’s communication needs, preferences and choices. These arrangements supported patients to understand their care and take part in decisions about their treatment.

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.

Staff encouraged patients to regain their independence as soon as they were able after surgery. We saw staff supporting patients to mobilise safely and to use ward areas, toilets and bathrooms independently where possible.

Physiotherapists worked with patients when needed to support recovery. They helped patients with exercises and safe movement, enabling them to get out of bed and start walking as early as appropriate. The service provided a range of equipment to support mobility and help maximise patients’ independence and recovery outcomes.

Patients who wished to manage their own medicines were supported to do so. The service had a clear policy to support the self‑administration of medicines, and staff encouraged patients to take an active role in their care and decisions about their treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were offered a choice of food and drink during their stay. Staff also provided clear information to support recovery after surgery, including advice about returning to everyday activities.

Staff supported people to stay in contact with friends and family while they were in hospital. Overall, the service used appropriate support, equipment and information to promote independence and give people choice and control over their care.

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 were able to use call bells to ask for help, and staff regularly checked on patients to make sure their needs were met. During the assessment, we observed staff responding promptly when patients used their call bells.

Patients appeared well cared for, clean and comfortable. Staff kept personal items, such as glasses and walking aids, within easy reach. Staff encouraged patients, where appropriate, to eat and drink enough to support their recovery and maintain their health.

Emergency call bells were available next to each bed and in theatre and recovery areas. This meant staff could quickly summon additional or specialist support when needed. Patients who used mobility aids were supported to access them safely and were assisted until they were able to return to their usual level of mobility.

Staff responded promptly and provided reassurance, emotional support and advice to patients and those close to them. Patients described staff as attentive and responsive to requests for help, which helped them feel supported and reassured following surgery.

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 had access to appropriate facilities and resources to support safe working. This included rest breaks, designated rest areas for on‑call doctors, and access to food and refreshments outside normal working hours. The resident medical officer had access to private facilities, including sleeping, showering, changing and toilet areas.

Staff worked well together and supported each other across professional groups. We saw effective multidisciplinary working in practice. For example, physiotherapists provided training to other staff on fitting air boots, which supported safe and effective patient care. We also observed collaborative working during admission acceptance meetings, where staff from different disciplines discussed patients’ needs and planned care together.

Staff had access to support that recognised the diversity of the workforce. The service had arrangements in place to support staff wellbeing, including trained mental health first aiders and access to a 24‑hour mental health and wellbeing support line.

Leaders promoted an inclusive culture and supported staff with protected characteristics to feel respected and included within the service.

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.