Forest 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 patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection and assessment, the rating remained as good. Patients’ individual needs and preferences were understood. Patients were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. Patients’ needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority for staff.

However, staff did not always treat patients with kindness and compassion.

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 most patients with kindness, respect, and compassion. Interactions observed during the inspection showed that most staff knew patients well and understood their individual communication styles, preferences, and emotional needs. Patients were supported in a considerate and patient manner, with staff taking time to explain actions and check understanding. Feedback from carers highlighted that staff were kind, compassionate and treated patients with dignity and respect.

Staff respected and upheld patients’ privacy and dignity. We observed staff interacting with individuals in a considerate and discreet manner, ensuring personal information was handled sensitively and patients were supported in ways that always protected their dignity.

During our review of incident reports, we noted staff used positive and kind language to describe patients, for example, distressed’ rather than' challenging'.

However, we observed a staff member pushing a patient in a wheelchair. We noticed the patient’s feet were not on the footrests and were dragging along the floor, which increased the risk of harm for the patient. We raised this with senior leaders who advised the patient may have refused to put their feet on the footrests.

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

Patients’ individual needs and preferences were understood, and these were reflected in their care, treatment and support. Staff worked closely with families to understand and support patients’ preferences, wishes, personal histories, and backgrounds. They recognised the importance of this information in providing personalised, compassionate care. We reviewed seven care records and found that care plans reflected what was important to each patient, including their personal routines, cultural needs, and preferred ways of receiving support. During the inspection, we observed staff offering reassurance when individuals appeared anxious and adapting their approach in a calm and sensitive manner to minimise distress. Families described positive, trusting relationships between staff and patients using the service, noting that staff knew individuals well and understood their history, preferences and behaviours.

Patients’ communication needs were met to enable them to engage in their care, treatment and support to maximise their experience and outcomes. Staff spoke positively and warmly about the patients they supported, demonstrating a genuine commitment to promoting their wellbeing. They described individuals’ preferences, histories, and communication styles confidently. OT staff engaged with families to complete the “Getting to Know Me” booklet, ensuring care planning was more personalised and informed by patients’ histories, preferences and communication needs.

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 maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. Patients had access to their friends and family. Family contact was promoted through pre-admission information sharing and requests for families input into risk assessments and ‘getting to know me’ booklets. Families could visit anytime of the day and were able to stay overnight with their loved one. Patients were encouraged to meet family in the community for leisure activities with staff support. Staff supported patients to maintain contact with family though telephone/video calls and sending letters and cards. Families were invited to ward events, as observed on the day of the site visit with families attending a St Patrick’s day event. We observed patients engaging positively with the music and activities and enjoying time with their families in a safe and supportive environment.

Patients had access to activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. The activity provision had improved since our last inspection. Staff displayed activity timetables with structured activities available six days a week. Patients had personalised timetables in their bedrooms. In addition, each patient had an activity profile stored in the activity’s cupboard, providing staff with personalised guidance on preferred activities. Night staff also had access to these profiles to support patients who became unsettled during the night, including using meaningful activity as a de‑escalation approach.

The hospital had its own minibus, enabling staff to take patients on outings such as trips to the seaside, local pubs and a nearby farm. The ward had a pool table. There were 2 pet tortoises on the ward, patients requested pets and tortoises were decided as the best option as they are easy to care for, safe and non-allergenic.

Between 01 December 2025 and 28 February 2026, patients were offered 331 internal activities with 262 being accepted. Over the same time patients were offered 262 external activities of which 70 were accepted. However, the activities folder at the service only referenced 2 outings per month happening and the calendar of activities for the same three months evidenced 2-3 activities on Saturdays each month and only 2 activities in total on Sundays during that period.

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

Patients’ needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority and staff quickly anticipated these to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. Although patients were not always able to tell us themselves, our observations and the care records showed that staff responded quickly and effectively when individuals were in pain, discomfort, or distress. We observed a nurse responding promptly to the needs of a distressed patient after their family had left the St Patrick’s Day event. The nurse offered to contact the family member to reassure the patient that they had arrived home safely. Carers described staff as respectful and sensitive, particularly when supporting patients with personal care or when they were distressed.

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 patient-centred care.

Patients received safe, effective and patient-centred care as the provider recognised and met the wellbeing needs of staff. The nurse in charge planned breaks for staff at the start of each shift. One of the HCA’s stocked staff toilets with toiletries. Staff had access to regular debriefs. Staff supported each other’s cultural and religious needs by swapping shifts. Staff had access to the provider’s wellbeing hub and counselling. HCAs told us they were well supported by the nurse in charge when on shift. Staff we spoke with told us about a staff support app used across the hospital. They explained that the app provided access to online counselling and a direct link to a helpline when needed.

Patients were supported by staff who felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. The provider told us they celebrated staff success through monthly peer nominated awards, long service rewards and annual care awards. However, we were not aware of anyone in the service receiving any of these awards at the time of the inspection.