The New Foscote 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 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.

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.

We scored the service as 3. 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 took time to interact with patients and their relatives and engaged in conversations that were both respectful and compassionate. Staff consistently used a calm tone of voice, maintained appropriate eye contact, and actively listened without rushing. They checked patients’ understanding, offered reassurance when needed, and encouraged questions. Throughout each interaction, staff explained every step of the patient’s pathway clearly and sensitively, ensuring people felt informed, supported, and valued.

Patients and their loved ones told us that staff treated them with kindness and were sensitive and supportive to their needs. They described the service as ‘‘brilliant’’ and said staff guided them clearly through every step of the process. Patients told us they felt comfortable asking additional questions when they needed further explanation. We reviewed patient feedback that described the service as exceeding expectations. Patients said they were “blown away” by the care they received and praised staff for “being warm, friendly and highly informative.”

Patients and their loved ones told us staff always respected their dignity and privacy. Each patient had their own room. We saw staff knock before going in and close the blinds so no one outside could see into the room.

Staff gave patients dignity pants, which had a small opening at the back. These helped protect the patient’s comfort and modesty while still allowing staff to carry out the procedure safely. Staff also gave patients a gown to wear. Staff completed privacy and dignity training when they started their job and knew how to care for people respectfully.

When a patient required onward referral, staff made sure they supported patients to access the relevant service. We saw contact numbers in the staff areas of relevant teams to contact when this was required.

Staff said that there was a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. “It is like a family, and everyone is supportive.”

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of people using the service. They explained that although there was no designated prayer room, each patient and their relatives had access to a private room for prayer or reflection.

Staff described how they adapted care to meet individual preferences. For example, patients wearing a headscarf could wear it during their procedure. Staff treated patients on an individual basis and tailored their care to any protected characteristic present. Patients had access to a varied menu, which included specific food groups, such as kosher items.

Staff understood some patients may present frightened and anxious. They worked hard to manage patients’ emotions and ensured they allowed time for questions. We heard an example of a very frightened patient who came in for a procedure. Staff ensured they had a quiet room prepared and provided continuous reassurance from the moment the patient arrived until they left.

We observed staff held all discussions with patients within the privacy of their individual rooms.

Staff understood the importance of complying with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The service stored patient records electronically. Staff locked their computers when they moved away from the desk to maintain confidentiality. Patient feedback displayed in corridor areas did not contain any patient‑identifiable information. Staff used electronic communication platforms to share information, provide updates and maintain effective communication. They knew that could not legally share any patient‑identifiable information on this platform.

For patients who did not speak English, the service accessed interpreters via an external interpreting service.

We scored the service as 3. 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 ensured patients had their own private room for the duration of their treatment. They allowed friends and family to stay in the room whilst the patient underwent their procedure.

Staff supported patients to have choice and control over their own care. From the first assessment appointment until they left the hospital, staff ensured patients knew and understood their treatment and care. Families told us staff involved them in discussions about their loved one’s care. They said staff helped them understand the person’s condition and supported them to take part in decisions about treatment and ongoing care.

We observed staff speaking clearly and slowly to patients to help them understand the information about their care. Patients reported staff gave them information in a way that was easy to understand. Patients felt they could ask clarifying questions without any time pressure.

Patients could choose their appointment date and time to fit their lives and availability.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients said staff listened when they experienced pain during their procedure and provided them with pain relief in a timely and compassionate way.

Staff knew how to identify and respond to changing risks to patients. They received resuscitation training and took part in simulation‑based training. These were real‑life clinical scenarios, allowing staff to practise resuscitation skills and decision‑making in a safe and controlled environment.

The service had clear processes in place to support patients with potential cancer. When staff identified a suspicious lesion, they took a biopsy and sent it for histological analysis. Staff spoke with the patient at the time and clearly outlined the next steps. They made appropriate onward referrals to specialist services as required. Staff allowed time for patients to ask questions and to guide them through the next steps. This ensured patients received support and timely follow‑up throughout the process.

We scored the service as 3. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt valued by both their leaders and their colleagues. They felt supported to complete training and develop their knowledge in endoscopy. Staff explained they completed training without time pressure and felt encouraged to progress at a pace that felt right for them.

Staff expressed pride working for the service. They described feeling genuinely thrilled to be part of a team where both the hospital and staff consistently put patients first. One member of staff said they felt “proud to work here because the service has given me new opportunities and helped me develop new skills.” Others told us they really enjoyed working within the service and spoke positively about the supportive culture and dedicated team ethos.

Staff told us they had not witnessed any disrespectful, discriminatory, or abusive behaviour from colleagues or patients. They said that if such behaviour did occur, they felt confident they could report it to their manager and they would take appropriate action.

Staff felt confident to give feedback and raise concerns with their manager and within the team. They felt safe in their roles to speak up when needed. Staff told us leaders were approachable and responsive, which helped create a culture where staff felt comfortable sharing ideas, raising issues and contributing to improvements.

Staff felt recognised and appreciated for their contributions. The provider acknowledged staff success and held a variety of award celebrations. Every quarter, the provider awarded one clinical and one non-clinical award. They displayed this on their web-based collaboration and management platform. Leaders also announced awards at their daily morning huddle and shared these amongst all staff via email. The awards aligned with the provider values. Every Christmas, leaders took all staff members out for a meal and ended the evening with an awards ceremony. We spoke to staff during a focus group and heard how much they appreciated the awards. One staff member told us they received “2 awards for being approachable”.

Staff received annual appraisals, which included meaningful conversations about their career development. They said these discussions helped them identify future goals and the skills they wanted to develop. Staff reported that managers explored ways to support their progression, including access to training, opportunities to broaden their experience and guidance on potential career pathways within the service.