South Bristol NHS Community 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 people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked people’s privacy and dignity was respected; they understood their care and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence 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 this stayed the same.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 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.

We observed staff treating people with kindness, compassion and dignity. Staff spoke with people in a kind and caring way. The care for patients was evident in the culture. Their attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive. Patients were positive about how the staff spoke with them and the care they had received.

Patients were assured information about them was treated confidentially, and they knew staff respected their privacy. The trust assured that patient records were stored securely. During the assessment we saw that doors to consultation and treatment rooms were kept closed during appointments to protect people’s privacy and dignity. However, 1 patient commented in the biologic bay area, they were struggling to hear the clinician speak to them due to the noises from other patients.

We reviewed patient feedback received by the outpatients team. Feedback included the ‘Staff are kind, helpful and efficient and don’t make you feel rushed.’ As well as the ‘Staff were very friendly and made me feel valued.’

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.

Staff treated people in a respectful manner from booking in at reception to the end of the outpatient session. We observed staff engaging with patients and checking patient’s well being especially when receiving treatment in the biologic clinic. We noted staff helping people who used services to navigate to the right areas. People using the service told us they understood their care and treatment.

Staff made reasonable adjustments so people with a disability could access and use services on an equal basis to others. The service was fully accessible to wheelchair users and patients whose mobility may be restricted.

The service treated patients as individuals and made sure patients’ care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and human rights, as well as dementia and autism awareness, which formed part of the mandatory training programme. Although dementia training was at 80% compliant the other training modules were at 100%. This supported staff to provide care that was person-centred, inclusive, and responsive care to meet individual needs.

Staff told us information leaflets were specific for each clinic they provided; they were not on display as there would be too much information. Leaflets were also available in other languages and interpretation services were also available.

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 patients’ independence. Patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. During the assessment we observed staff clearly explaining what was going to happen next in a way people could understand. Patients we spoke with told us they were involved in care decisions and felt they were able to ask staff questions regarding their care and treatment.

Patients using the service could be supported by family or friends during their consultation. Patients were offered a chaperone, and posters in patient areas highlighted this option. Chaperones helped maintain dignity during intimate examinations or procedures and provided emotional reassurance.

Staff received training in equality and diversity to support people as individuals, and compliance at time of assessment was 100%.

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.

Staff were alert to patient’s needs and took the time to observe, communicate and engage people in discussions about their immediate needs. Where a patient had particular needs, these were accommodated as far as possible. Staff could quickly recognise when people needed urgent help or support and used appropriate tools to assist.

The service monitored waiting lists for all specialties, and they regularly re-validated their waiting lists. They did not have the ability to report on the last agreed date a patient may be waiting to be seen or be at risk of deterioration. The risk was monitored on their risk register, and they had a plan to implement a new functionality. The Patient Safety Team were able to verify there had been no incidents of moderate or above harm caused by delays.

There were no drinks dispensers in outpatients, however there were signs to advise patients to ask for water from staff.

Patient feedback specifically for outpatients was limited as it was put under the different clinical specialties rather than outpatients. While positive praise was shared, there was no evidence changes had been made as a result of any direct patient feedback.