Diana Princess of Wales Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service delivered care that was responsive, flexible and centred on the individual needs, preferences and values of patients and those close to them.

Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. Staff ensured people understood their diagnosis, treatment options and plan of care, and encouraged questions and open discussion.

Families, carers and advocates were involved in care and discharge planning where appropriate and with the patient’s consent. Staff supported open communication with those close to the patient and ensured information was shared in line with patient preferences.

Staff supported patients and families to discuss and plan future care, including preferred place of care and death. These discussions were handled sensitively, recorded clearly and shared appropriately within teams to support continuity.

The service made reasonable adjustments for people with additional needs, including those with mental health conditions, learning disabilities, autism, dementia, physical disabilities or sensory impairments.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service understood the diverse needs of the population it served and provided care that was joined up and coordinated.

Care was well integrated with health, social care and voluntary sector partners. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people with frailty, long-term conditions and those experiencing social deprivation.

Bereavement support was offered to families following a patient’s death. This included emotional support, signposting and, where appropriate, dedicated support for children and young people. Bereavement packs were given and offered to families and friends that contained useful information and guidance.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service provided people with clear, accurate and timely information to help them understand their care, treatment and options. Staff gave information verbally and in writing and took time to explain choices, including the risks and benefits of different approaches, in a sensitive and compassionate way.

Patients were supported to understand their prognosis in a way that reflected their wishes and readiness for information. These conversations were handled sensitively, and staff adjusted the level and timing of information based on individual preferences. Clear information was provided about discharge planning, ongoing care and who to contact for advice. People were appropriately signposted to community services for continued support.

Patients and families knew how to raise concerns or complaints and who to speak to if they were worried about care. Information about this was provided verbally and in written materials.

The service had systems to protect patient confidentiality and information governance. Staff understood their responsibilities around data protection and information sharing. Patient information was stored securely, and conversations about care were held discreetly.

Staff had access to communication aids to help patients become partners in their care and treatment. Information was accessible on the unit about hospital passports and staff told us these were used and respected when patients presented them. Facilities were available for interpretation and translation for those people who did not have English as a first language.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service actively sought and responded to feedback from people, families, carers and staff.

People felt able to share their views and raise concerns. The service managed complaints in an open, transparent and timely way. Apologies were given where appropriate, and responses clearly explained findings and actions taken.

Learning from complaints was shared with staff through meetings, supervision and updates. Complaints data was reviewed through governance processes to identify themes, trends and potential inequalities.

This information was used to inform improvements in care and service delivery.

The most recent bereaved relative survey taken from the NACEL data released in 2025 was mostly positive. Leaders told us that there had been limited engagement with the survey and they were working on improving this. There were 3 elements in the survey where the scores were lower than the average – supporting the person to receive fluids, supporting the person to receive nutrition and providing care for the person’s emotional needs. These issues had been addressed by raising awareness in training and were being monitored as part of the audit of the Trusts Care in the Last Days of Life Document. The 2026 survey was open at the time of inspection but had not concluded.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured people could access care in a timely way based on clinical need. Staff repeatedly stated that caring for people nearing the end of life was ‘one of the most important things we can do in hospital’ because ‘we have one chance to get it right’. In 2025, staff cared for 675 end-of-life patients who had died at the hospital.

Referral processes were clear, and people were prioritised appropriately. Leaders monitored referral activity and time to assessment to ensure responsiveness. In 2025, the acute specialist palliative care team and the end-of-life team received a total of 955 referrals. However, leaders were not able to show the data for how many face-face or telephone contacts were made after referral.

Most staff were trained in equality, diversity and inclusion which supported awareness of barriers to access and helped staff respond appropriately.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service demonstrated a proactive approach to identifying and addressing inequalities in people’s experiences and outcomes.

Leaders and staff recognised how people’s backgrounds, protected characteristics and social circumstances could affect their experience of care. They actively sought feedback from groups at higher risk of inequality and used this to tailor care.

Learning from engagement with disadvantaged groups was shared across the organisation and used to improve practice. This contributed to reducing inequalities, improving trust and ensuring care was inclusive and responsive.

The trust had an Equality, Inclusion and Human Rights policy to support this work. The service had systems in place to identify and address inequalities in people’s experiences and outcomes. Leaders and staff recognised that people’s backgrounds, circumstances, protected characteristics and cultural beliefs could affect how they experienced care, and they took steps to respond to this in practice.

Staff received mandatory training in Equality Diversity and Inclusion, however, data provided by the trust showed that not all staff had completed this.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service supported patients and those close to them to plan for the future in a timely, personalised and compassionate way. Staff helped patients to make informed choices about their care, treatment and support, taking account of their wishes, values and what mattered most to them.

Patients were encouraged to have ongoing conversations about future care, including prognosis, likely progression of their condition and available treatment options. Patients and families told us they felt able to ask questions and were given time to consider their options.

Care plans were updated as patients’ needs changed. Patients and families were involved in decisions whenever care plans were reviewed or altered. Records showed that discussions about treatment options, changes to care and future planning involved appropriately qualified medical and specialist staff and were clearly documented.

Patients and families were supported to understand the reasons for treatment changes and were reassured that care would continue to focus on comfort, dignity and symptom control.

Treatment escalation decisions and DNACPR discussions were reviewed regularly, discussed with patients or their families, and documented clearly in individual records.