Midland Metropolitan University 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 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.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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 an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

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

We spoke with patients during our visits and received positive remarks about care. One patient told us they felt well cared for and listened to, and their relative also praised the staff for the care they received.

NHS friends and family test (FFT) data was collected in real time using an innovative clinical research patient feedback system and patients were sent a text to invite them to complete a survey electronically after discharge or clinic appointment.

The trust’s NHS friends and family test score was 88% and it received 3,000 responses from January 2025 to August 2025, out of these 188 were negative. The results were shared with the wards, and speciality level governance quality reports with trends of low scores monitored monthly

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff were aware of patients’ individual needs. Risk assessments and pre-assessment processes showed this. Managers felt their pre-assessment processes used a structured approach which recorded individual needs and preferences of patients while still ensuring safety. Staff applied this information to the care they gave. Patients and relatives told us they were involved in the review of their care and that staff would listen to them. Consultants would discuss all aspects of the procedures, and we were told that all staff cared about them.

We were told that family members could discuss the care and were included in discussions about discharge. We observed this discussion during the assessment process and a patient could tell the staff about their care commitments to a family member. This was included in the discharge plan.

Staff understood the equality, diversity and inclusion policy which promoted equality values, religious beliefs, and the disability needs of patients. Care plans reflected these considerations.

Staff supported patients’ aspirations for their recovery. Support was given through information sharing and onward care planning for patients’ discharges including follow up appointments.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff promoted patient independence. Staff had processes which ensured patients had up to date information about the decisions involving their care.

Staff welcomed visitors and relatives of patients on the wards. Relatives said they felt welcomed by staff.

Staff and support teams had access to suitable equipment.

Where a patient was unable to make an informed choice, the family or carer were involved in the discussion. During our inspection we observed health care assistants and housekeeping staff ensuring patients were as involved as possible in choices such as meal choices.

We saw in patient’s records that discussions about important decisions such as ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ were undertaken collaboratively when possible. We saw through observation of patient records that this had taken place.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

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.

The service used patient feedback as a key measure of monitoring the quality of care, this was an important “health check” for the services it provided as well as promoting a strong culture of listening to patients to help improve services.

The service offered many opportunities for patients and carers to give their feedback including email, and social media. Also, local and national patient feedback surveys, NHS friends and family test survey, patient stories, patient forums, trust governor forums and comments received directly.

All feedback was shared with the clinical areas and was responded to by the communications team or the patient advice and liaison service team.

Staff responded promptly to call bells. Concerns were escalated and quickly actioned. Any concerns were shared through handover documentation at the changing of staff shifts.

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.

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

Over 15 staff members were interviewed during this assessment to support our findings. Staff told us they felt supported, respected, valued and were proud to work at the trust. We were told local leaders supported them in carrying out the best possible patient care and treatment.

Some staff told us that it had been a stressful time moving hospital sites. However, they all now spoke positively about the move to the Midland Metropolitan Health campus site and felt supported.

Staff could raise concerns with senior leaders and managers on the wards and were comfortable in approaching any staff member to discuss concerns. They told us this had been an improvement over the last year during the move to the new hospital site and described other staff as being part of a family.

Staff felt able to raise concerns. Managers had an open-door policy. Freedom to speak up guardians were active within the organisation. There was a dedicated guardian section on the staff intranet and posters around the site providing information and contact details.

There was an active programme of staff briefing and engagement sessions, by weekly emails, and meetings held both face to face and virtually.

Staff took breaks despite a busy environment and had a quiet space to take these. Staff felt the workload for the service was busy but enjoyed the new environment and felt they had what they needed to perform their roles.

Staff felt safe when doing their work. Staff were supported if they were struggling at work, and this had an impact on the care they delivered. Managers offered support for occupational health needs and provided signposting where needed.

Staff had easy access to personalised support that recognised the diversity of the workforce. Managers recognised the value of a diverse workforce and embraced this.

All trust staff were invited to participate in the National NHS Staff Survey between October and November 2024. The survey results were reported in a benchmark format. Only 34% of trust staff participated in the 2024 survey. Managers told us that the poor survey compliance was due to the move to the new hospital site, as some staff found this unsettling at the time.

From the 34% of trust staff that completed the survey, 59% would recommend the hospital as a place to work, this was an increase of 6% from 2022 data.

The trust had recognised that there were other areas that needed further focus and attention, such as the response rate.