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

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or 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 evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff tried to maintain privacy and dignity for patients by closing cubicle doors and drawing privacy curtains. In addition to this we observed staff lowering the tone and volume of their voice in order to maintain privacy.

However, patients privacy and dignity was not always maintained. Patients were regularly being cared for in the corridors for long periods of time due to lack of available beds. We saw a patient who was only partially covered and not wearing any undergarments. We immediately alerted a member of staff who responded promptly and ensured the patient was covered. Despite the swift response, this represented a clear breach of the patient’s privacy and dignity.

The patients who were being cared for in the corridors were on beds across from the patient cubicles. As a result, whenever staff needed to move a patient out of a cubicle, they first had to relocate the patient in the corridor which compromised the team’s ability to maintain privacy and dignity for those in their care.

Patients checking in at the reception desk could easily be overheard by others seated in the waiting room. As a result, conversations involving personal or sensitive medical information were not conducted in a private manner. This posed a risk to maintaining patient confidentiality and did not align with the expected standards of privacy and dignity.

We reviewed the results for the friends and family test for the urgent and emergency department from January 2026 to February 2026. Positive themes which emerged included staff attitude and clinical treatment. Negative themes included waiting lists, discharge planning and accessibility.

Patient comments received by the department read ‘Thank you for your kind professional personal care, your reassurance and thorough check and professionalism.’ Another read, ‘everyone was kind and calm giving me the confidence that I was in the right place.’

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff displaying a caring attitude towards patients and treating them with kindness. Patients we spoke with said staff were very caring, helpful and pleasant.

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.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always meet people’s immediate needs or respond to patients who were in distress.

Staff did not always support patients or their families who became distressed in an open environment. During the inspection, we did not observe any oversight of patients in the waiting area, including individuals who appeared visibly distressed and required assistance.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. However, some of the sections within the assessments were incomplete. For example, out of the 12 patient records we reviewed one patient record included a completed bed rail assessment however the rationale for the use of bed rails was not completed. None of the 12 patients we reviewed had evidence of a completed falls or pressure ulcer risk assessments.

The department had quiet rooms accessible for patient, friends and family use. These rooms could also be used to support conversations and communications which required a quieter environment.

In addition to the quiet rooms, there was a multifaith chapel within the heart of the hospital which served as a quiet and inclusive sanctuary, offering spiritual support and solace to patients, visitors, and staff of all faiths and beliefs.

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; they supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. The trust had an established workforce team, and one of its key objectives for the year was to enhance the provision of pastoral support for staff.

Staff told us they received support and took part in clinical incident reviews and debriefs following a difficult event.

Staff felt supported, respected and valued by their managers in all areas we visited. Supervision was seen as supportive and managers approachable. We saw that staff were encouraged to speak up.

Staff had access to the occupational health service who aimed to promote and maintain the highest degree of mental, physical and wellbeing for all staff within the trust.

Additionally staff could also access the emotional well-being policy which aimed to ensure the highest level of emotional wellbeing possible for employees and promote positive mental health and wellbeing for all staff in the workplace. However this policy was out of date and due a review.

Staff spoke positively about career development opportunities and were encouraged to apply for developmental positions. Staff told us they received annual appraisals to discuss career developments but also had daily opportunities to speak with senior staff about opportunities to progress.

The trust recognised and celebrated their staff and volunteers through employee of the month, delivering excellence awards and long service awards. Staff could nominate an individual or team who delivered outstanding care or had improved patients experience.