St Mary's 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. We assessed 3 quality statements. 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. People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. People were able to make their own decisions and be understood. Their information was kept confidential. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

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 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.

The service demonstrated good standards of kindness, compassion, and dignity in every interaction observed during the assessment. We observed that it was the cultural norm rather than an aspiration and consistently reflected in feedback and observational evidence.

We observed consistently positive and compassionate interactions on the wards, where patients received care that preserved their dignity, and nursing staff showed they were polite, attentive and responsive. Call bells were answered promptly, and we saw distressed patients with dementia supported by all staff in a respectful and calm manner.

We saw that family and carer involvement in care was actively supported on Colwell Ward. We observed relatives attending at mealtimes to support patients with dementia on the ward. The ward clerks clearly explained the process for relative involvement, reflecting the principles of John's campaign, which highlighted the right of family carers to stay with people with dementia.

Patient feedback was positive across multiple care areas. On the chemotherapy unit, all the patients we spoke with described feeling “safe” and “well informed”, and we observed that the waiting area provided clear information and support group materials that emphasised personalised cancer care and patient information access. On Colwell ward, relatives told us that the care they witnessed was “really good” and another family expressed they were happy with the care surrounding the admission process into “Your Next Patient” (YNP) spaces. Other patients on the ward described being “deeply informed” of everything relating to their care and that nurses “are doing a good job”.

A patient on the stroke ward said staff “were doing all they could”, described dignity and respect as “very strong”, and that they could “not fault anything”. Other patients across the wards expressed gratitude and we heard one patient say, “thank you for your kindness” and “thank you, you are all a very special group of people”. Patient experience data reinforced these observations. The services patient experience data from October 2025 to January 2026 showed that more than 80% of comments were positive and the small proportion that were negative, had dominant themes relating to staff attitude, communication, and clinical treatment.

The national NHS patient experience measure, the Friends and Family Test (FFT), showed that the service achieved an overall rate of 98 % of 166 responses, with 145 rating the service very good and 17 rating it good, which was above the national benchmark and indicated a sustained very high level of patient satisfaction.

Also, the hospital had launched the Good Grief Trust Card Initiative, working with a national charity that signposts bereaved people to appropriate support services. Good Grief Trust cards were routinely included in the hospital’s bereavement pack as part of the hospital’s care after death procedures, ensuring every bereaved individual received clear information about available support. Bereavement officers worked alongside the mortuary team to support families whose loved ones had died not only in the hospital also those in the community and were later brought to the hospital. The hospital had a comprehensive framework of policies and standard operating procedures (SOPs) in this area, including the supporting bereavement care SOP, which included separate guidance for adult and paediatric care after death instructions and bereavement follow-up. Ward staff demonstrated a good understanding of them and confidently explained how they are used in practice.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We scored the service as 3. 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 responded promptly and compassionately to people's immediate needs, with staff demonstrating responsive person-centred care across multiple ward areas during the assessment.

Patients told us they mostly received their pain relief when they needed it, and staff were attentive to signs of discomfort. Records we reviewed showed that observations were carried out as required and notes generally reflected patients physical and emotional well-being, including how they were feeling at the time.

We observed patients receiving Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT), being cared for in a supportive and well monitored environment. Staff were attentive during treatment, regularly checking for potential side effects and complications. Patients were also supported with their wider well-being. For example, we saw patients being offered and assisted with food and drink during treatment which helps maintain comfort and dignity throughout their care.

The service demonstrated consideration for patients approaching the end of life with processes in place to support compassionate and dignified care. Patients and their relatives had access to quiet and private spaces. Facilities across the hospital supported patients’ holistic needs. We saw designated rooms available for prayer and reflection, catering to different religious denominations which enabled patients and their families to practise their faith in a respectful and inclusive environment.

Makaton is a language programme using signs and symbols to support people with learning disabilities or communication difficulties, and Makaton trained staff were arranged to meet patient communication needs.

We scored the service as 3. 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 supported staff wellbeing through a range of support options, including digital resources, occupational health services, peer support, and an external employee assistance programme.

Staff felt supported by managers to progress their careers. Staff could self-refer to occupational health for signposting and support and had direct access to an occupational health mental health nurse.

In addition, the independent employee assistance programme offered confidential counselling, advice and information across a wide range of practical and emotional issues.

However, on Colwell ward we saw that there was no staff room and staff took breaks off the ward near the hospital café. We spoke to one staff who said this had implications for staff well-being because of the ability to remain close to the clinical area during breaks.

Also, some staff reported the working environment was often stressful due to managing high patient numbers caused by staffing shortages. While managers were described as supportive and procedures were in place to escalate staffing concerns, the lived experience of stress on shift was a well-being concern. However, staff in the pharmacy team described the culture of the team as very supportive during low staffing periods and had experienced compassionate support from leaders.

Colwell ward reported a higher than usual number of violence, aggression and physical assault incidents in January 2026. This was primarily associated with 2 complex patients who did not meet criteria to reside (DNMCtR) and remained on the P2 pathway awaiting placement. Both patients required highly specialised care due to significant behavioural changes and suitable placement options were limited locally, contributing to extended ward stays and increased behavioural challenges.