West Cornwall 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

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

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.

People felt they were treated with kindness, compassion, and dignity during their care. They said staff were professional and always treated them well. All feedback we received from patients was positive about their care and treatment. We observed staff introducing themselves, as well as providing reassurance and carrying out comfort checks.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and always upheld. Staff preserved dignity by keeping patients covered during procedures and ensuring they were covered again promptly afterwards.

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.

People’s individual needs were accounted for in the pre-operative risk assessment and documented in the patients’ care plans. People told us they were given the opportunity to discuss their individual health beliefs and preferences.

People’s communication needs were met to enable them to fully engage in their care, treatment and support, helping to maximise their experience and outcomes. An independent translation service was available for patients who did not speak English. Patients with a learning disability were identified on the system and, where they were assessed as suitable for treatment at this location, support was arranged. This included the option for relatives or carers to accompany them, or support from the Learning Disability team.

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.

People were supported to have choice and control over their care and to make decisions about their treatment and wellbeing. They said they felt involved in the decision-making process, were given sufficient information, and felt supported to make informed choices.

People said discharge planning was discussed with them and were aware of when they could expect to be discharged and what needed to happen beforehand.

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 monitored patients regularly before, during and after their procedure, and were clear on how to escalate any concerns. Sepsis boxes were available, containing the essential supplies needed to identify and treat sepsis promptly. We were informed doctors trained in advanced life support were always available on nearby medical wards.

People said they felt listened to. Call bells were within reach, and patients told us staff responded promptly when called. Call bells were checked weekly to ensure they were working properly.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We heard there were cultural challenges within the service, including examples of poor communication, disagreements, and cultural differences, some of which had been formally raised with leaders. Leaders recognised the team had become fragmented and that recent changes to the trust operating model had had an impact. While steps were being taken to address these issues, some challenges remained evident.

However, several staff said the service was a positive place to work, and they felt well supported by leaders, for example being able to take time off at short notice to care for family members.

Hospital staff survey results in 2025 for the entire trust surgical division, including West Cornwall Hospital, were similar to those in 2024. The findings showed staff enjoyed working with colleagues, felt trusted in their roles, and reported low levels of bullying, abuse and harassment. Lower scores were identified in areas such as workload, time pressures, fatigue, development opportunities and flexible working. Team leaders were reviewing survey results and developing action plans, which would be discussed and monitored through trust divisional cultural diagnosis meetings.