All Saints 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 supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

However, patients raised concerns about not having enough staff that could not sign on the wards. Patients felt it was difficult to communicate with staff at times. We observed that staff did not always interact and engage with patients effectively on the ward.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We spoke to 6 patients on Braidwood ward with the assistance of an interpreter. We also utilised the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to observe how staff were interacting with patients and delivering care and treatment on the ward. The SOFI is a framework for directly observing and reporting on the quality of care experienced by people who may not be able to describe this themselves.

Patients raised concerns about not having enough staff that were able to sign on the ward. Patients described that it was frustrating when staff were on shift that could not sign. Patients felt that there were times where there was no one to communicate with on the ward as a result.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients did not always show that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, or that they provided patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We observed mixed interactions between staff and patients whilst using the SOFI on Braidwood ward. There were limited interactions between staff and patients and there was limited staff on the ward that could sign with patients. We observed patients mostly communicating with each other and doing their own activities. However, we did observe some very positive engagement between a staff member and patients, using signs and communicating well with patients.

Patients felt that there was generally enough staff on the ward and that they responded well to incidents. Patients mostly felt safe on the ward. Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Patients stated that staff helped them with understanding aspects of their care plan and supporting them in line with their communication needs.

Patients gave positive feedback about the occupational therapy team and the activities facilitated by them. Patients accessed activities and facilities in the local community.

Patients described that the service supported them to have contact with their family as per their wishes.

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

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

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 made adjustments for disabled patients. The service had a lift which was available for patients with mobility issues or difficulties to access the ward. Managers confirmed that if any patient required equipment or adaptations whilst on the ward that this would be assessed and considered by the service.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on.

Patients described feeling involved in meetings about their care and treatment. Patients felt involved in decision making about their care and in relation to the ward through community meetings.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Managers confirmed that the service would accommodate for any patient dietary requirements as necessary.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Managers confirmed that they would support any patient to access spiritual or religious support as required.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers. The service had a link with a BSL interpreter service who could be booked to accommodate the communication needs of patients and staff. This also included out of hours provision in addition to 24/7 access to online video BSL interpreters to support engagement. Patients confirmed that interpreters were used by the service within meetings.

Patients confirmed that they had access to advocacy services and were positive about the support they received from them.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients felt listened to by staff about any concerns that they had and felt supported in being listened to about their care and decisions. Staff informed patients about their care and treatment including considerations and planning about potential discharge from the ward.

Patients were informed of their rights under the Mental Health Act. The service had a video that could support staff in this process to ensure this was being appropriately signed to patients. The service would also use interpreters when informing patients of their rights. Patients confirmed that staff informed them of their rights.

Patients felt supported with their medication including being supported and encouraged to manage this independently where appropriate.

Patients chaired their ward rounds and had advocacy in attendance. Patients were involved in reviewing their risk assessments and in making decisions about their care and treatment. Patients could participate in community meetings and noted that the service would listen and make changes if they raised any concerns.

Patients gave positive feedback about the progression they had made on the ward and were looking forward to their future as a result.

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 were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as physical health issues and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Staff described how they monitored patients and how they would escalate any concerns that they identified.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. The ward generally had low levels of physical interventions.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff mostly felt respected, supported and valued. Staff gave positive feedback about the Registered Manager and the impact they had made since joining the service.

Managers were aware of historic and ongoing cultural issues within the service and had undertaken pieces of work to address and improve this.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff were passionate about their roles and ensuring that patients received appropriate care and treatment.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Managers explained how they monitored and supported staff members with any physical or emotional health issues or needs.

The hospital had an average sickness rate of 5.7% for the 12 months prior to the assessment. The month with the highest sickness rate was February 2025 at 9.9%. The service was able to provide commentary as to why the sickness levels had increased during certain months, mostly due to multiple staff being on long term sickness.

Staff appraisals were taking place and the figures for these were improving.