St George's Hospital (Tooting)

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 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 has remained good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for and were treated with dignity and respect.

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.

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. We observed staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Feedback from patients we spoke with was positive and commented that they “were looked after pretty well.” Relatives were happy with the communication and information given to them from staff and commented that staff “have gone above and beyond.” We saw staff working to improve the experience of patients during their stay. Friends and family test results were often over 95% for the ward areas.

There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. All staff we spoke with were motivated to deliver care that is kind and promotes people’s dignity. Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of people using the services.

We saw staff explaining things to patients in a way they could understand. Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment. Patient’s family and carers told us visiting times were flexible. Staff listened and acted upon people’s needs including contacting family or friends. Staff locked patient records when they moved away from computer screens to maintain confidentiality.

We observed that there was a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues including colleagues from other organisations. Staff collaborated with other colleagues to provide support for people including support with emotional wellbeing.

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Staff did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s communication needs were not always met to enable them to engage in their care and treatment and to support them to maximise their experience and outcomes. One patient’s feedback shared with us showed the service did not account for their communications needs and they repeatedly received letters for telephone appointments, despite having no verbal speech.

Most people we spoke with told us the service took account of their individual needs and preferences. We saw in patient records that people’s needs and preferences were reflected in plans for patient care. We observed that staff treated people as individuals, considering any relevant protected equality characteristics. People’s personal, cultural, social, and religious needs were understood and met. The service had systems such as translation services to support communication and choice. We observed some posters on the walls of wards that had been translated into other languages.

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 in their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment, and wellbeing. Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences. People felt they were provided with adequate information relating to their procedures to allow them to make an informed choice. People told us they were offered chaperones.

People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that are important to them. People had access to their friends and family while they were using the service. There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment.

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 took account of patients’ individual needs, preferences, and comfort. Patient records detailed people’s additional needs such as mobility. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services.

People felt that staff would respond to their needs quickly and efficiently, especially if they were in pain. Patients also told us that there was a dedicated pain clinical nurse specialist (CNS) who could review them and help with pain management.

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 were positive about their work and felt they were supported well. They told us managers were approachable, supportive and were visible and regularly visit clinical areas; throughout the inspection we observed managers visiting clinical areas and checking in with staff throughout the day.

The provider tried to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff. These included providing the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks. We observed that space was an issue and there was limited dedicated staff rest areas.

Staff had health and wellbeing offers, including staff networks, wellness action plans, and flexible working. The trust had staff recognition programmes such as employee of the month, we observed a member of theatre staff who had been appointed employee of the month and gifted a bouquet of flowers. Other team recognition awards included department accreditations and awards, with several departments and wards within the surgical service receiving gold and platinum awards. Such initiatives allow for recognition of both teams and individuals through nominations and good performance and staff we spoke to were proud of these achievements.

The health and wellbeing data from the national 2023 NHS Staff Survey showed a mixed picture, 47% of staff in the division agreed that the organisation takes positive action on health and well-being, moderately lower than the trust score of 50%. We saw evidence that leadership within the division had developed priorities for responding to staff survey data. One of the priorities identified was 'positivity and celebrating best practice' which included work to provide greater support for staff. We did not see timescales for the outlined priorities.