BPAS - Sandwell

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 patients were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that patient’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 patient’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 remained good. This meant patients felt well-supported, cared for and were treated with dignity and respect.

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 patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Feedback from patients who used the service and those close to them were mostly positive about the way staff treated them. We saw feedback from surveys and comments included “All staff involved were polite, patient and understanding” and “I couldn’t have had a better nurse. All questions were answered and she was so supportive. The reception staff were lovely and approachable too.” And “the staff were incredibly kind, I did a lot of crying and the nurse who dealt with me was absolutely lovely. I only hope everyone has someone as kind as she was.” However, we also saw a few negative comments including “I believe women should be talked/ supported more through the procedure”. We saw no actions were taken to address the negative comments from the survey.

There was a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues from other organisations. Staff were moved between different clinics within the provider network and they all treated each other with respect and worked well together.

Patients’ individual needs and preferences were understood, and these were reflected in their care, treatment and support. Staff respected the individual needs of each patient and showed understanding and a non-judgmental attitude when caring for or discussing patients’ specific needs such as mental health needs.

Patients’ privacy and dignity was respected. We observed interactions between patients and staff where staff ensured patients dignity was maintained. The patient satisfaction survey showed 100% of patients in 2025 felt their privacy was always maintained. There were private areas for patients to have conversations and curtains between trolley spaces in the ward area.

Patients believed that staff responded to their needs quickly and efficiently, especially if they were in pain, discomfort, or distress. Patients told us the staff were attentive to their needs.

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

Women were treated as individuals and preferences were understood and reflected in care, treatment and support. The patient satisfaction survey for October to December 2025 showed 100% of patients were aware and involved about the available treatment types; results were similar throughout 2025. Women could choose the location and dates of procedures, along with medications and anaesthetic type which would suit their needs. For example, one woman told us she chose to have a local anaesthetic, so she could drive home.

Women were treated in line with national guidance pathways and staff were aware of protected characteristics, providing support that may be relevant. For example, we were told some women chose to travel to a clinic to ensure they were seen and staff supported this, assisting if necessary to identify the best locations and times for treatments.

Patient’s communication needs were consistently met. Information was available in multiple languages and could be accessed through a QR code. When looking at the information, a process was in place to change the screen to the BBC weather page, so women could quickly exit information they may not want to be seen looking at. Women were supported to have their needs met by staff who understood the context of their experiences.

The service supported patients if they had additional needs. For example, provided the opportunity for patient to visit the clinic prior to treatment so they can familiarise themselves with the building, theatre rooms and what to expect on the day of treatment.

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

Women were supported to make decisions about their care. Assessments included discussion around choice of available options. Patient feedback showed that 100% of women attending the centre felt that they were given sufficient information to make decisions.

Women were supported to understand their rights using their preferred communication method. Midwives used interpreters and repeated information to ensure women understood the options for treatments. The service ensured they checked the level of understanding at each stage of the treatment, and this included consent to the treatment, confirmation of understanding.

Following conscious sedation analgesia, women were required to be accompanied by an adult (over 18 years) to ensure their safety for the initial recovery. Women’s wellbeing was checked regularly, and we saw that there was genuine concern if a women reported an abusive relationship and safety for recovery was discussed prior to treatments.

Women were offered contraception at the time of their consultations, however, this was not always taken up or involved the contraception of choice.

Women under 18 years of age, were involved in decisions about their care and understood their needs at the time. Their preferences were listened to and respected. We were told that young women were supported with decision making by an appropriate adult, or in their absence an advocate.

The service listened to and understood patient’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patient’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were alert to patient’s needs and took time to observe, communicate and engage patients in discussions about their immediate needs. They found out how to respond in the most appropriate way to respect their wishes.

Staff recognised different ways in which each woman may communicate discomfort, pain or distress, including both verbal and non-verbal cues. Pain was checked repeatedly throughout treatments and when pain was identified, staff administered relief quickly, checking effectiveness after administration. Women were encouraged to take pain relief prior to surgical procedure, during the pre-admission assessments.

Staff noticed when someone was becoming upset and offered reassurance and support accordingly. Throughout the surgical procedure, staff explained what was happening, what was the next steps and potential timelines. For example, we saw that one woman had a suspected bleed following her procedure and staff explained that additional checks were required to ensure her safety. Reassurance was given throughout and staff confirmed that bleeding had stopped prior to returning her to recovery.

Staff recognised that the environment and process of termination was not familiar with women, so time was spent to explain want things were and who the team were. This helped women to remain calm and not become overwhelmed with the noise and environment.

Patients could request same sex chaperones or surgeons, but it was not always guaranteed. They might also need to travel to different clinics to meet their request. All staff who worked at BPAS Sandwell were women, but some surgeons were male. The patient satisfaction survey report from October to December 2025 asked patients if a chaperone was offered; 76.5% said yes and 23.5% said they were not offered a chaperone. This was discussed at the quality and risk group in December 2025 as it was noted that 25% of patients had reported not being offered a chaperone across the country. Managers were going to investigate chaperone offer compliance.

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

Patients received safe, effective and person-centred care as the provider recognised and met the wellbeing needs of staff. This included the necessary resource and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas.

Patients benefitted from staff who had regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences. If necessary, leaders provide a timely and considered response.

There was a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. This enabled staff to do their job well and to be well. The managers had “flower Fridays” and bought staff bunches of flowers to thank them for their hard work.

Staff were supported if they were struggling at work. This had a positive impact on the care they delivered to patients. There was an employee assistance program that all staff had access to. It had access to a doctor 24 hours a day with a prescription service, counselling, trade unions, menopause support and much more.

Staff had easy access to personalised support that recognised the diversity of a workforce with proactive and reactive measures. The teams celebrated different religious holidays and ensured there was focus on different themes within the month. They had recently had information related to menopause highlighted on their communications channels for example.

Patients were supported by staff who felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. They had a sense of belonging and the ability to contribute to decision making.

There was a monthly ‘patients forum’ for employees to raise and share information. Meeting minutes were shared on the communication channels for staff to see what was discussed. There was a link to the forum on the intranet. For example, in November 2025, the forum had discussed a research project which was ongoing looking at the potential benefits of artificial intelligence in the patient pathways and concerns around pressure to move directly from calls to calls meaning no screen breaks.

There was a quarterly all staff conference for the whole of BPAS. This was online, lasted for 2 hours and the whole of BPAS closed to ensure staff were able to attend. Staff received updated but also had the opportunity to ask questions; all questions were responded to and feedback posted online fi not answered at the conference. Staff told us they enjoyed the conference and made them feel involved and part of the company.

There was a staff survey 2025 and at the time of the inspection, only the national results had been shared. This showed 89% of staff were proud to be working at BPAS, 88% felt valued as a team member and 94% said they had colleagues who demonstrated the BPAS values.