Arrowe 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.

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 took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. We observed kind, caring interactions between patients and staff. Staff explained to patients what they were doing when providing care and treatment.

Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness. Patients told us that communication was good and that staff knew a lot of information about their care and treatment which was shared with them.

We saw staff interact with patients who were living with dementia in a calm and caring manner.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs.

During consultations with nursing or medical staff, curtains and doors were closed which ensured privacy for patients. However, we observed patients’ privacy and dignity not always being maintained on the coronary care unit. The ward was mixed sex, had no toilet and bathroom facilities and the ward layout meant patients were facing each other. Patients accessed toilet and bathroom facilities on an adjoining ward.

The trust did not have a specific privacy and dignity audit; however, we were informed that privacy and dignity was monitored within the trust through other audits and feedback methods. For example, privacy and dignity was covered in the quality of nursing care audits and Friends and Family Test (FFT). Results from November 2024 to April 2025 showed that 98% of patients felt their privacy and dignity had been maintained in the last 6 months.

There was a specific thematic privacy and dignity report completed based on FFT feedback that was presented to the trust Patient and Family Experience Group (PFEG). Privacy and dignity was also included in the CQC National Patient Experience Surveys. Results from the CQC 2023 Adult Inpatient Survey showed that Arrowe Park Hospital scored ‘worse than expected’ in response to ‘were you given enough privacy when being examined or treated’. We were advised that the patient and family experience group also received regular updates in relation to formal complaints and concerns.

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.

Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it and supported patients who became distressed in an open environment and helped them maintain their privacy and dignity.

Staff utilised private rooms to discuss sensitive details or for breaking bad news.

The hospital had a chaplaincy service and a bereavement service which staff could access to provide support to patients and their relatives.

Staff understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them.

We saw comments on the wards notice boards which included positive feedback from patient relatives regarding the exceptional end of life care provided by staff.

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 made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment. Patients we spoke with during our assessment understood their treatment plans and were involved in decision making about their care.

Staff talked with patients, families and carers in a way they could understand, using communication aids where necessary.

Patients and their families could give feedback on the service and their treatment and staff supported them to do this.

Patients on the medical wards felt happy with their care and were offered refreshments appropriately. Patient feedback was mixed in relation to food provision. Some described it as excellent, and others felt it could be improved.

Information on how to provide feedback was displayed on notice boards across the medical wards.

Patients gave positive feedback about the service. Thank you cards from patients and their families were displayed on the wards we visited.

During our assessment we observed appropriate equipment such as hoists available to help staff promote independence and mobility. The trust provided care bags that contained sensory aids such as eye masks, headphones, and fidget tools.

The trust had a learning disabilities (LD) nurse in post who ensured that patients with learning disabilities were reviewed each day. There were hospital passports in use and the trust worked with the community LD team who liaised closely with inpatients or outpatients to discuss and organise reasonable adjustments. There was a flagging system within patient records to ensure staff were aware of patients in their care who had a learning disability.

There was access to a local network for LD as well as a new network between the trust, local mental health trust and LD social work team.

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.

Most patients we spoke with commented they could access their call bell and use it to alert staff. Staff responded quickly when call bells were used and if there was a delay patients told us staff explained why. Patients told us they were offered regular pain relief if they were in pain. The medical wards achieved 99% compliance for pain management in the last 6 months.

Staff understood the importance of identifying needs, views and wishes and aimed to prioritise this. They told us they tried to ensure immediate needs were met but this was sometimes made difficult if a high number of patients requiring one to one care and they didn’t have dedicated staff available.

We observed good examples of staff being alert to patients’ needs and offering immediate intervention, support and help. We observed intentional rounding and staff supporting patients through mealtimes. Call buzzers were answered swiftly, and equipment was readily available for staff to use.

Wards used NEWS2 to assess deterioration, wellbeing and pain scores formed part of this. A non-verbal tool was also available.

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.

There was support in place to prevent and address anxiety, stress and depression related absences including, but not exclusive to mental health and wellbeing sessions led by a clinical psychologist. An employee assistance programme was available and staff could request flexible working. The trust had increased occupational health clinical capacity and introduced health and wellbeing pages on the intranet available for all staff. There was an occupational health and wellbeing policy in place.

The road to wellbeing map was a new infographic developed by the senior nursing team within the surgical division for mental health awareness week. The aim was to highlight and signpost staff to all the diverse types of wellbeing support the trust offered. The poster was displayed in the staff areas.