Northwick Park 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. 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.

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. This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion but did not always respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Patients told us they found staff caring and considerate and were positive about the interactions they had with staff. We observed patients being spoken to with kindness and a smile. In the temporary escalation (TES) areas we observed staff treated patients with kindness but their privacy and dignity was not always maintained due to the lack of privacy screens.

The friends and family test survey was advertised throughout the department encouraging patients to respond. The data from the survey in June 2025 showed that 98% of respondents had a positive experience in the department and 103 of 123 respondents said their care was very good. However, the department’s response rate was very low and below the national average response rate of 16%. Leaders told us the low response rate was due to a change in provider and response rate were expected to return to previous high response rates.

We observed trust staff working collaboratively with staff from other organisations, including the ambulance service and police. The tea and coffee trolley was made available to them in the rapid assessment unit encouraging a friendly working relationship between staff.

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 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 understood people’s individual needs and recognised the diversity of their population. Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. Patients had risk assessments completed and recorded on the EPR. However, as this information was not easily visible or flagged on the record there was a risk the information and actions required such as accessing additional equipment to help position patients to avoid skin damage, may be missed resulting in harm such as patient falls or the development of a pressure ulcer.

The paediatric waiting area had toys for children to play with, and the play specialist had a designated area with toys and games for children in the emergency department. They worked with clinical staff to help children stay calm and keep them distracted if, for example they needed their bloods taken.

Staff at all levels of seniority across all professions demonstrated caring and attentive attitudes towards patients. We observed the lead clinician, who was walking through the department to a meeting and not on duty, responding to a patient’s request for a cup of milk, this was done with kindness and without delegating to another member of staff.

We observed staff getting patients a drink when requested. Not all patients were happy with their care. Some patients we spoke with in the temporary escalation areas told us they were unhappy with their care. There had been a lack of communication and updates, and they had not received any food or water.

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

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff we spoke with told us the department had a positive culture working together with colleagues and they were well supported by their leaders and colleagues. Staff were friendly, caring and approachable to each other and patients, throughout the inspection.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service and wellbeing initiatives which included discounted gym membership. An employee assistance program was free for staff and provided access to confidential help and support on several topics, such as finances.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example, through staff awards. At the time of our inspection staff were able to nominate colleagues for an award to be announced later this year.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Several staff members we spoke with told us about further education opportunities they had accessed through discussions in their appraisal, often leading to a promotion.