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 that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked 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 remains good. 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.

We scored the service as 4. 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 treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff introduced themselves to patients and explained their roles. Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. We observed staff taking their time to interact with patients, and those close to them, in a respectful and considerate way.

Staff considered patient privacy and dignity. Doors were installed to separate clinical space and reception areas, and to restrict public access. Privacy curtains were installed to reduce exposure of patients in recovery and bays. Theatre gowns, dignity shorts and dressing gowns were worn to protect patients’ dignity. Blankets were provided and endoscopy rooms were locked during procedures. Designated nurses attended procedures for patients’ welfare.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. All doors to the service were secure with staff providing access. For staff areas there was swipe access to doors (a digital security system where staff used ID badges or smart cards). However, we found one unlocked filing cabinet near the open bay area which contained patient records. We raised this with staff and this was rectified at the time.

Staff used admission rooms to ensure confidential conversations took place in a dignified way. There was a quiet room for sensitive conversations or when patients required a quiet space with the opportunity to leave without going through the department. There was a dignity champion responsible for monitoring the requirements for maintaining privacy and dignity. There was a chaplaincy and a multi-faith sanctuary for staff, patients and relatives.

Feedback was gathered through patient surveys and data was provided for the year prior to our onsite visit. When asked if patients felt they had sufficient privacy and were treated with dignity and respect during their appointments, 100% of patients said “Yes”.

The service also recorded patient feedback through the friends and family test (FFT). Data provided for the 12 months prior to our visit showed a high number of responses were received with scores of 99% (x 4 months) and 100% (x 8 months). In March 2026, comments included: “Felt very comfortable. Everything was explained.” and “Every member of staff was fantastic, patient, helpful, reassuring and kind.” Friends and family test scores are based on a 6-point scale from "Very Good" to "Very Poor" (including "Don't Know") alongside optional written comments and overall percentages are produced.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff attitudes and behaviours observed when interacting with patients showed they were discreet and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. All the patients we spoke with said they were treated with kindness and compassion. They said they had received safe care and treatment. Patients said staff had respected their privacy and dignity.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Leaders had developed an experience of care strategy (ECS) 2024-2029 outlining the trust’s plan to deliver compassionate and person-centred care. It focused on 5 goals, including actively listening to patient and carer feedback and continuously improving across the life course and journey of care. The strategy also included providing accessible and inclusive health services for their learning disability and autistic population. For example, offering reasonable adjustments by better equipping staff and improving the hospital environment to meet their needs.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they might relate to care needs. The endoscopy service provided an individualised service for patients with learning disabilities, autism or those suffering with anxiety. Staff said patients were treated with respect and were well supported. There were 2 quiet cubicles. Patients’ hospital passports were reviewed. Passports are documents designed to support patients when visiting hospitals, providing. They provide staff with vital information about patients’ preferences, communication needs, health history, and medications to help staff provide tailored care. Staff received support from the trust’s learning disability service which was available to be called on when needed.

Patients underwent suitability checks for day surgery conducted by preoperative assessment staff, clinical staff and anaesthetists. Suitability considered the type of operation, comorbidities and social factors including home support. There were also patient suitability for endoscopy checks conducted by bookings staff, pre-assessment nurses and clinical staff.

The service improved patient access by ensuring ease of entry to premises and meeting individual communication needs. Information leaflets were available in multiple languages, as well as in large print and easy‑read formats. Patient information leaflets could be translated into a range of languages. Interpretation services were available either in person, telephone, video, or in writing. There was a chapel which could be accessed by staff and service users wanting to pray or have space for quiet reflection.

Feedback was gathered through patient surveys and staff responded to concerns. When asked “Overall, how would you rate the day surgery and endoscopy service?” data provided (for the year prior to our visit) showed 97.9% of patient rated the service as “excellent”.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Staff worked with patients to understand individual preference and any specific needs and made reasonable adjustments to meet these wherever possible. People who used the service had their needs and preferences assessed and understood by staff and were supported by the care navigators when required. They were treated with equality and in a non-discriminatory way.

Staff said they ensured people’s needs were met and planned in advance. For example, if, during pre-assessment appointments, patients said they suffered from anxiety they would be contacted by one of the care navigators prior to their procedure. They would explore how best to support them and make choices about their care plan.

We observed excellent communication between staff and patients in theatres.

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 worked with patients to understand and manage risks. The treatment and care met patients' needs in a way which was safe and supportive.

Staff identified and managed risks appropriately with pre-operative risk assessments. Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients with regular monitoring using a recognised tool and would respond to changes in risk promptly. Patients underwent pain assessments prior to procedures which were scored from 0 to 10 and patients told us they were provided with pain relief if they required it.

We reviewed a selection of care plans and saw these were tailored to individual needs and circumstances. Patients told us staff involved them in their care decisions and information about their care and treatment was clearly explained.

Patients told us staff responded if they asked for help. We observed nurses speaking to patients in a calm and reassuring way.

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.

Staff had access to trust-level forums allowing questions to senior leaders, including monthly sessions led by the chief executive and “ask an exec” sessions. There was an internal social media platform for staff to cascade information, celebrate activity and post ideas.

The trust had a preceptorship programme to provide support, guidance and development for newly registered practitioners (for example, nurses and operating department practitioners) during their first 12 months following registration.

Staff had access to wellbeing support with resources available 24/7, accessible online, and there were wellbeing leads. There was a health and wellness matters information board on the staff corridor. This displayed, for example, details of the trust’s “care first” 24-hour staff support, including counselling, bereavement, stress, bullying and harassment.

There was a recruitment and retention lead who supported wellbeing-related activities such as walks and breakfasts. There were recognition schemes such as “stars” and the development of a newsletter spotlight award to provide more formal recognition of staff. There was also a recognition activity linked to “nurses day” including gifts. Staff described an inclusive culture and friendly atmosphere with bring and share activities reflecting a diverse workforce.

There were measures to support overseas/internationally recruited staff, including a strong focus on welcoming and settling-in help for new staff and families, and developing a team family connection. There was also a welcome pack of information about working in the department.

Staff said they felt valued by their leaders and colleagues. Staff had opportunities to contribute to service development. Staff were able to provide feedback or raise concerns and expected responses. We observed daily huddles (meetings) when department leads had the opportunity to recognise staff for their work.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Leaders highlighted development opportunities for nurse endoscopists, non-medical prescribing and rotation between sites to maintain staff motivation and the development of skills.