Victoria Infirmary

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

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

We last inspected the service, in 2014 in combination with diagnostics and with the other location. 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 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 that staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients demonstrated that they were discreet, respectful and responsive Staff provided patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Posters displayed in reception, indicated how a chaperone could be requested and encouraged patients to ask for assistance if needed. Consulting room doors had posters to indicate if the room was available or in use.

Feedback from patients was encouraged in the department. The service collected data as part of the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT), however results were for the hospital rather than outpatients alone . Between January 2026 and March 2026, the hospital scored an average of 88%. The NHS friends and family test is an important tool to help people who use NHS services to provide feedback on their experience. Actions from the most recent survey included improvements in communication, including information about waiting times. The current survey has been revised to include feedback about wheelchair access, availability of assistance, signage, reasonable adjustments, seating capacity, and facilities such as cafés and toilets.

In November 2025, a PLACE inspection of the location scored 92% for privacy and dignity.

We observed an ophthalmology clinic appointment between a clinician and a patient. We saw effective communication was maintained throughout the consultation. The patient was treated with respect and dignity. Although the patient was already known to the clinical team, the doctor appropriately introduced himself and all individuals present in the room and sought the patient’s permission for CQC presence during the consultation. The consultation demonstrated good patient engagement and a person‑centred approach to care. The patient actively participated in the review and provided positive feedback regarding an improvement in her eyesight since commencing the new eye drops. Consent and compassionate care were clear. The eye test procedure was explained thoroughly to the patient, and verbal consent was obtained prior to proceeding. Throughout the test, the doctor regularly checked in with the patient to ensure she was comfortable and tolerating the procedure well.

Patients we spoke with described the service as fantastic. They said that staff were kind, excellent, went above and beyond, were caring, helpful and supportive. Patients felt that their needs were met at every visit and were treated with dignity and respect. Staff took time to introduce themselves, explain procedures clearly, and asked for consent before proceeding making them feel valued. The availability of refreshments was identified as an area for improvement, particularly during longer waiting times and expressed need to re-open the cafe.

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.

The service treated patients as individuals and provided reasonable adjustments such as interpreters or wheelchairs. Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. People could be signposted to the trust’s chaplaincy team if needed.

Patient information and details of how to feedback was available in a range of formats.

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 involved in discussions about their care and told us they were encouraged to ask questions.

Patients were supported to bring those close to them to appointments if they preferred.

Chaperones were available to support patients during consultations.

For patients whose first language was not English, interpreters were booked to ensure full understanding rather than relying on others present to translate.

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 aware of and responded to immediate needs.

Staff responded to people’s needs promptly and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff acknowledged that when clinics were running late they displayed the waiting times. However, patients we spoke with told us that they rarely had to wait prolonged periods to be seen. There were water, coffee and vending machines available in the reception area.

Staff we spoke with told us that in times when patients received upsetting news, they supported them compassionately and allowed them to take the time they needed.

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 we spoke with told us they felt respected, supported and valued. They enjoyed working in the department and they supported each other as a team.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the trust and the team.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. We observed that staff had recognition badges that had been given to acknowledge their work either individually or as a team.

There were wellbeing services available trust wide, underpinned by a trust wide health and wellbeing strategy. Staff could access a range of services via the trust intranet and website. This included smoking cessation, mental wellbeing and talking therapies, musculoskeletal and physiotherapy services, promotion of physical activity and digital wellbeing support via an electronic application. Additional training was made available such as de-escalation and breakaway training to support staff, who may encounter patients presenting with aggressive behaviours, with skills to manage a difficult situation and promote confidence.