Dorset County 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 of staff taking every effort 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 as outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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.

Patients spoke positively about their experiences of the care provided by a range of staff from different roles. Staff were described as, “very respectful”, “supportive”, “reassuring and kind.” Feedback from a relative was that everyone had been “lovely”, and they felt their relative had been well looked after. We saw staff supporting patients in discreet and respectful ways, ensuring they were covered whilst on the bed, seated or moved in wheelchairs. They used privacy curtains around the bed when personal care was delivered or when confidential discussions took place. Staff interactions with patients were good – they were seen providing patients with physical help, such as changing position, walking or to take a drink. We heard staff in different roles giving encouragement and emotional support. Patients using the Endoscopy service were well cared for by staff, who were kind, attentive and reassuring.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Patients told us aspects of their care and treatment had been discussed with them and information had been given in a way they could understand. They told us they had the chance to ask questions, and staff took time to explain the answers. We heard staff ask patients if they had any pain or needed a drink. We saw staff undertaking checks with a patient before they were given medicines and they helped the patient to get into a more comfortable position to take their tablets. Staff were also heard explaining what they were going to do for their respective patient, for example, checking a patient’s blood sugar levels. Staff did their best to ensure the confidentiality of information about patients, this included handling written information in a considered way. White boards, used for board round discussion and to manage bed flow were wall-mounted in the most suitable place on wards. We observed staff handing over confidential information between shift changes in as discreet manner. Doctors’ rounds, where each patient was reviewed, were carried out in as discreet a way as possible, with curtains closed around beds.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients who were able to speak with us told us how they were respected as individuals by staff. This included maintaining as much independence as possible, such as using the shower facilities or mobilising around the ward. We saw patients’ needs being supported by staff in an individualised way, considering for example, needs associated with dementia and limitations because of a stroke. Patients were given encouragement to join in social activities where available and to take responsibility for their personal care where able to do so. We saw patients on one ward engaged in baking activities, where they were encouraged and supported by staff. There was a creative health programme, which included regular sessions with patients to support their recovery at the bedside or in activity spaces on the ward. These sessions aimed to connect patients to nature, seasonality and celebration. An example of artwork completed by a patient was shared with us, as well as craft work activities. We also saw information about a patient who had dementia had been supported with their behaviours through art. This led to improvements to their physical and psychological wellbeing.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Patient records we reviewed contained information about each person’s individual needs, any risks or limitations they had, such as those related to physical, social and mental well-being, and what they needed support with. This information informed the level of interactions needed by nursing and other professionals. For example, we saw occupational therapist supporting a patient with their meal, a healthcare assistant checking on a patient to ensure they were able to eat their meal.

The service made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example, by ensuring people could access the right treatment and care and by meeting patients’ specific physical and communication needs. A ‘This is Me’ personalised booklet was used for patients who had additional needs related to dementia or other communication problems. Staff encouraged families to help fill these in, so they understood how best to support and deliver a holistic level of care.

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.

Patients were supported by staff to make choices and decisions, and take control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients told us they had been given information which helped them to feel informed about their condition, investigations, procedures and the treatment and care required. A patient who spoke with us told us how they had been given information about stopping smoking and how much they felt supported by staff to do so.

Patients commented positively on the variety of choice, presentation and quality of food. We saw there was a good variety of menus available, including those which catered for restrictions or cultural reasons.

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.

Patients appeared to be comfortable and well cared for, and we saw staff helping patients if they needed to get into a more comfortable position. Staff made sure patients could reach their drinks, tissues and other personal effects. Patients told us staff checked if they had any pain and gave pain relief medicine if needed. We saw patients had call bells, which were mostly placed within easy reach. Staff mostly responded quickly to call bells, although we heard prolonged ringing from one bay and a patient calling out for a nurse several times on Ilchester Ward.

The Endoscopy Unit staff were able to monitor and respond to the needs of their patients. They provided close support and used their experience and skills to ensure their patients were safe and had their choices respected.

Patients living with mental health conditions and dementia had their individual needs met by staff who understood and recognised the importance of doing the right thing for them. There was access to additional expertise, such as dementia specialists, stroke therapists and occupational therapists.

Patient assessments identified risks related to eating difficulties, respiratory problems, or mobility limitations, and care planned for these accordingly. Staff ensured needs related to these areas of risk were responded to in a timely way, so patient care was not compromised. Staff identified and responded to the changing needs and risks of their patients. They assessed and reviewed the condition of the patients and made adjustments as needed. Immediate concerning matters were escalated as needed.

The trust had a Call for Concern team. This team was accessible to patients, their families or carers 24/7, when they had worries about deterioration and the lack of immediacy in addressing matters. The team could be called to give more information or act on the concerns.

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 health and wellbeing information through the employee intranet. They also had access to wellbeing folders and posters, which were undergoing an update and refresh. We were told the intranet pages were updated in mid-2025, to improve ease of use and accessibility.

Staff felt positive and proud to work at the hospital and valued the team-work and supportive approach from one another. Staff had access to support for example, from health and wellbeing coaches and menopause advocates. They could also access the employee assistance programme at any time, night or day. Counselling could be arranged through the employee assistance programme. Staff could also be signposted to the NHS 24 Mental Health Hub for urgent mental health assessment and support 24/7.

Where staff had been involved in traumatic incidents there was a Trauma Risk Management Process (TRiM) and several staff had been trained to support staff. We saw examples of matters managed well through this process.

We were provided with examples of wellbeing actions which had happened in practice. All staff members on one medical ward were invited to share their experiences of working on the ward. Around 86% of the staff, including younger less experienced staff took advantage of this opportunity to discuss their experiences and how they were impacted on their days off.

Staff appraisals included conversations about wellbeing matters and if any issues were identified, the discussions changed to focus on safe and effective wellbeing. This then helped to identify the best course of action.

The trust provided information showing that over the past 12 months, 94% of healthcare support workers took sick leave at least once. Between December 2024 and May 2025, 83% reported at least one illness, with many experiencing multiple episodes. This trend had continued throughout the year. We saw information describing the content of training and support offered to healthcare support workers. These sessions were held with professional nurse advocates. Group sessions were standard, and individual sessions could be arranged if needed, with an aim of improving support and reducing work-related sickness absence.